-^- 


O  PRINCETON,    N.     J.  "v^ 


Presented  by  Mr   Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agnnv  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 

_ 


*      S    <^  1.^^'^     ^ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcinive 

in  2011  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Tiieological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.arcliive.org/details/attempttoascertaOObe 


^^       {^.  ^aM^^ 


ATTEMPT 

TO  ASCERTAIN  AND  ILLUSTRATE 

THE 

AUTHORITY,  NATURE,  AND  DESIGN 

OB" 

THE  INSTITUTION  OF  CHRIST 

COMMONLY  CALLED 

THE  COMMUNION 

AND 

THE    LORD'S    SUPPER. 

BY  WILLIAM  BELL, 

PREBENDARY  OF  ST.  PETER'S,  WESTMINSTER. 

FROM  THE    SECOND    LONDON   EDITION. 

PUBLISHED  BY  W.  WELLS,  NO.  6,  COURT  STREET,  BOSTON. 

Frinted  at  Cambridge  by  Hilliard  Cr  Metcalf. 
1809. 


I4-  f  /s/j 


PKIITCETOI^ 
fi£C.  APR?881 


P  R  E  F  A  C  E^'^"^''^  " 


•M^ 


FIRST  EDITION. 


THE  authority,  nature,  and  effects  of  a  rite  institut- 
ed by  our  Lord,  as  one  of  the  two  distinguishing  rites  of 
his  rehgion,  must  certainly  be  a  subject  of  serious  concern 
to  all  who  embrace  the  Christian  faith  :  and  the  endeav- 
our to  acquire  just  and  accurate  ideas  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per has  been  rendered  a  matter  of  still  greater  necessity, 
by  the  no  less  important  than  contradictory  opinions,  which 
still  continue  to  be  entertained  with  respect  to  this  partic- 
ular mstitution. 

The  following  treatise,  which  took  its  rise  from  the  au- 
thour's  endeavours  several  years  agx)  to  settle  his  own  no- 
tions upon  the  subject,  is  an  attempt  to  reduce  the  points 
in  question  relating  to  this  rite,  as  near  as  may  be,  to  de- 
monstration ;  by  examining  into  the  only  sources  of  in- 
formation, from  which  any  true  knowledge  of  it  can  be 
authentically  deduced  ;  the  history  of  its  institution  given 
us  by  the  apostles,  and  whatever  else  is  said  of  it  in  the 
New  Testament  itself. 

On  reviewing  the  argument  with  the  closest  attention, 
he  has  not  been  able  to  detect  any  fallacy,  either  in  the 
principles  assumed,  or  the  consequences  drawn  from  them. 
But  as  it  is  very  far  from  impossible  that  he  may  have 
been  deceived  by  some  mvoluntary  prejudice  in  favour  of 
his  own  conceptions,  he  now  at  length  submits  them  to 
the  public  ;  that  from  the  unbiassed  judgment  of  others  he 
may  either  derive  the  satisfaction  of  being  confirmed  in 
the  truth  of  his  deductions,  or  the  benefit  of  having  his 
mistakes  pointed  out,  and  such  conclusions  as  may  prove 


VI  PREFACE. 

unexceptionable  established.  And  with  the  direct  view 
of  more  easily  obtaining  one  or  other  of  these  advantages, 
the  inquiry  has  been  pursued  through  a  series  of  distinct, 
though  connected  propositions,  dra^vn  up  in  a  close  argu- 
mentative form  ;  in  order  that  every  single  principle  upon 
which  it  proceeds  may  plainly  and  fully  appear,  and  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  every  deduction  be  readily  and  clear- 
ly determined. 

From  the  very  important  effects,  which  have  not  only 
been  attributed  to  this  rite,  but,  with  the  best  inten- 
tions, considered  as  points  which  it  is  scarce  proper  to  call 
into  question,  there  is  perhaps  reason  to  apprehend,  that 
the  conclusions  here  drawn  relating  to  tiiem  may  possibly 
give  offence  to  some,  whose  approbation  the  author  would 
be  happy  to  obtain.  Should  this  prove  the  case,  he  still 
flatters  himself  they  will  admit  his  apology,  when  he  as- 
sures them,  that  the  treatise  OAves  its  existence,  as  well  as 
its  publication,  to  what  he  apprehends  ought  to  be  the 
leading  motive  of  every  such  inquiry  ;  a  sincere  desire  of 
ascertaining  the  true  intention  of  Jesus  hi  the  institution 
concerned,  tmd  spreading  the  knowledge  of  what  it'  is  cer- 
tainly desirable  that  every  one,  who  professes  the  faidi  ill 
Christ,  should  rightly  understand. 

If,  in  attempting  to  accomplish  this,  he  has  found  him- 
self under  a  necessity  of  reasoning  in  direct  opposition  to 
opinions  of  men  of  the  greatest  name  and  most  distinguish- 
ed abilities,  who  have  written  professedly  on  the  subject ; 
the  result  of  a  conscientious  pursuit  of  truth,  in  a  point  of 
such  impoitance  to  tiie  religion  of  the  gospel,  will  not,  he 
trusts,  be  imputed  to  voluntary  prejudice,  or  still  more 
unbecoming  presumption. 

Attempts  to  rectify  mistakes  in  points  of  considerable 
moment,  and  especially  when  advanced  and  espoused  by 
writers  of  tlie  gi-eatest  authority,  it  will  be  readily  agreed, 
are  endeavours  to  ser\  e  the  cause  of  truth  where  it  stands 
most  in  need  of  sui)port.  And  such  is  the  acknowledged 
eminence  of  those  writers  with  whom  we  ai-e  in  this  ques- 
tion concerned  ;  that  to  show  them  to  have  fallen  into  any 
mistake,  should  that  in  the  event  be  found  the  case,  is  lit- 


PREFACE.  Vll 

tie  more  than  proving  what  would  never  be  questioned, 
that  even  their  superiour  endowments  did  not  exempt  them 
from  the  common  fallibility  of  man. 

For  the  fundamental  principles  here  enforced,  with  re- 
spect to  the  nature  and  effects  of  the  institution  concern- 
ed, the  world  has  long  been  indebted  to  the  well  known 
Mr,  John  Hales  of  Eaton  ;  and  for  a  professed  argument 
in  their  support,  to  a  verj^  eminent  prelate,  several  years 
since  deceased.  But  how  clearly  soever  they  have  been 
established  by  this  distinguished  writer  ;  in  consequence 
of  objections  which  have  been  urged  against  some  partic-. 
ulai'S  of  his  reasoning  in  their  defence,  the  subject  itself 
still  remams  uivolved  in  obscurity ;  and  not  only  the  pub- 
lic doctrines  of  each  distinct  protestant  persuasion,  but 
the  private  opinions  of  individuals  of  perhaps  eveiy  per- 
suasion, either  vary  considerably  from  each  other,  or  at 
the  least  continue  vague  and  indecisive.  This  obscurity 
and  want  of  decision,  therefore,  it  is  the  professed  object  of 
the  following  treatise  to  remove  ;  by  such  an  application 
of  the  only  principles  upon  which  the  points  in  question 
are  capable  of  being  determined,  and  so  clear  a  deduction 
of  the  material  consequences  resulting  from  them,  as  may 
evince  the  true  nature  of  the  rite  by  a  complete  direct 
proof ;  and,  without  expressly  adverting  to  objections,  may 
in  effect  meet  and  supersede  them. 

Whether  the  argument  here  offered  is  equal  to  the  de- 
sign, such  a  scrupulous  examination  as  the  importance  of 
the  subject  requires,  can  alone  determine.  But  should 
there  be  found  in  it  any  such  mistakes  as  will  affect  the 
conclusion,  still,  it  is  hoped,  the  particular  train  of  reason- 
ing may  have  its  use  ;  by  assisting  others  effectually  to 
clear  up  what  this  attempt  may  have  failed  of  determining. 
And  should  even  this  be  beyond  its  reach,  it  may  yet  be 
of  some  service,  if  it  is  only  sufficient  to  excite  a  serious 
attention  to  the  subject.  For  how  little  pleasing  soever 
disquisitions  of  this  argumentative  nature  may  be,  and 
how  frequent  soever  they  may  have  proved  defective  ;  on 
pomts  which  have  occasioned  much  dispute,  and  contra- 
dictory opinions  of  great  importance,  they  are  still  abso- 


Vm  PREFACE. 

lutely  necessary  ;  since  it  is  certain,  that  nothing  but  at- 
tentive and  close  investigation  can  conduct  us  to  the  sat- 
isfactory detection  of  error,  or  the  direct  establishment  of 
truth. 

And  that  even  the  mere  practical  reader  may  not  be 
deterred  from  the  perusal  of  the  following  treatise  by  its 
argumentative  form,  it  is  proper  to  apprize  him,  that 
though  the  form  itself  should  not  be  familiar,  this  signal  ben- 
efit will  be  found  to  be  derived  from  it,  that  by  means  of  it 
the  authority, nature,  and  design  of  the  rite  concerned,  and  ev- 
ery practiced  consideration  relatmg  to  it,  are  here  deduced  in 
the  plainest  and  most  direct  manner,  in  the  very  short  trea- 
tise itself;  while  every  point  of  difficulty,  which  would 
otherwise  have  embarrassed  the  question,  is  kept  entirely 
apart,  by  being  thrown  into  the  Appendix,  and  the  subse- 
quent Notes  :  so  that  the  argumentative  method  of  treat- 
ing the  subject  here  adopted,  while,  by  tracing  every 
thing  from  the  fountain  head,  it  is  fai'  more  instructive  and 
satisfactory,  will .  be  found,  it  is  presumed,  as  easy  of 
comprehension,  as  even  a  mere  popular  treatise  upon  it 
could  have  been. 


PREFACE.  IX 

THE  church  of  England,  in  her  sixth  article,  declares, 
-^-^"  Holy  scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  sal- 
"  vation  :  so  that  whatever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may 
''  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man, 
"  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  the  faith,  or  be 
*'  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation." — 

In  the  t^ventieth  article  it  is  declared — "  The  church 
"  hath  power  to  decree  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  author- 
"  ity  in  controversies  of  faith  :  and  yet  it  is  not  lawful  for 
"  tlie  church  to  ordain  any  thing  that  is  conti-ary  to  God's 
"  word  written  ;  neither  may  it  so  expound  one  place  of 
"  scripture,  that  it  be  repugnant  to  another." 

The  nineteenth  article  declares — "  The  visible  church 
"  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  which  the 
"  pure  word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  be 
"  duly  ministered  according  to  Christ's  ordinance,  in  all 
"  those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same." 
And  then  the  article  adds, 

"  As  the  church  of  Hierusalem,  Alexandria,  and  Anti- 
"  och,  have  erred ;  so  also  the  church  of  Rome  hath  erred ; 
"  not  only  in  their  living,  and  manner  of  ceremonies,  but 
"  also  in  matters  of  faith. 

In  the  office  for  the  ordination  of  priests  in  the  church 
of  England,  the  following  questions  are  proposed  to  the 
candidate,  and  must  be  answered  in  the  affirmative  be- 
fore he  can  be  ordained. 

"  Are  you  persuaded,  that  the  holy  scriptures  contain 
"  sufficiently  all  doctrine  required  of  necessity  for  eternal 
"  salvation  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  ?  And  are  you 
"  determined  out  of  the  said  scriptures  to  instruct  the 
"  people  committed  to  your  charge ;  and  to  teach  nothing 
"  as  required  of  necessity  to  eternal  salvation,  but  that 
"  which  you  shall  be  persuaded  may  be  concluded  and 
"  proved  by  the  scripture  ?" 

"  Will  you  then  give  your  faithful  diligence,  always  so 
"  to  minister  the  doctrine  and  sacraments,  and  the  disci* 
"  pline  of  Clirist,  as  the  Lord  hath  commanded,  and  as 
"  this  church  and  realm  hath  received  the  same,  according 
"  to  the  commandments  of  God  ;  so  that  you  may  teach 
"  the  people  committed  to  your  cure  and  charge  with  all 
*'  diligence  to  keep  and  obsen^e  the  same  ?" 
b 


*  PREFACE. 

"  Will  you  be  ready,  with  all  faithful  diligence,  to  ban- 
"  ish  and  drive  away  all  erroneous  and  strange  doctrines 
"  contrary  to  God's  word  ?" 

"  Will  you  be  diligent  in  prayers,  and  in  reading  the 
*'  holy  scriptures,  and  in  such  studies  as  help  to  the  knowl- 
"  edge  of  the  same  V" 

In  the  office  for  the  consecration  of  Bishops,  the  first  of 
these  questions  is,  in  a  similar  manner,  proposed  to  the 
person  who  is  to  be  consecrated,  in  the  same  words  as  to 
a  priest ;  but  the  second  and  third  in  still  stronger  and 
more  explicit  terms,  as  follows. 

"  Will  you  then  faithfully  exercise  yourself  in  the 
"  same  holy  scriptures,  and  call  upon  God  by  prayer,  for 
*'  the  true  understanding  of  the  same  ;  so  as  ye  may  be 
"  able  by  them  to  teach  and  exhort  with  wholesome  doc- 
"  trine,  and  to  withstand  and  convince  the  gainsayers  ?'* 

"  Are  }^ou  ready,  with  all  faithful  diligence,  to  banish 
"  and  drive  away  all  erroneous  and  strange  doctrine,  con- 
"  trary  to  God's  word  ;  and  both  privately  and  openly 
"  to  call  upon,  and  encourage  others  to  the  same  ?" 

And  tiie  same  principles,  which  are  the  very  ground- 
work of  these  public  ordinances  of  the  church  of  England, 
are  no  less  conspicuous  in  the  pri^^ate  stiitutes  of  some  of 
her  religious  foundations.  In  one  of  those  with  which 
the  author  of  this  attempt  has  the  honor  of  being  connect- 
ed, the  conduct  required  of  its  members  in  this  impor- 
tant particulai'  is  pointed  out  by  an  oath ;  the  following 
declarations  of  which  are  too  striking  not  to  be  noticed, 
and  too  excellent  not  to  be  admired. 

"  Ego Deo  teste  promitto  ac  spondeo  me 

"  veram  Christi  religionem  omni  animo  amplexurum  ; 
"  scripturae  authoritatem  hominum  judiciis  praepositu- 
"  rum  ;  regulam  vitse,  et  summam  fidei,  ex  verbo  Dei 
*'  petiturum  ;  caetera,  quae  ex  verbo  Dei  non  probantur, 

"  pro  humanis  habiturum  ; et  contrarias  verbo  Dei 

*'  opiniones  omni  voluntate  ac  mente  refutaturum  :  vera 
**  consuetis,  scripta  non  scriptis,  in  religionis  causa  ante- 
*'  habiturum." — In  English  as  follows. 

"  In  the  presence  of  God,  I promise  and  engage, 

^*  that  I  will  with  my  whole  mind  embrace  the  true  relig- 


PREFACE.  XI 

"  ion  of  Christ ;  that  I  will  prefer  the  authority  of  scrip- 
"  ture  to  the  judgments  of  men  ;  that  I  will  draw  my 
"  rule  of  life,  and  every  particular  of  my  faith,  from  the 
"  word  of  God  ;  regard  as  merely  human  whatever  is 
"  not  proved  by  the  word  of  God  ; — and  exert  my  most 
"  sti-enuous  endeavours  to  refute  such  opinions  as  are  con- 
*'  trary  to  the  ^^^ord  of  God  :  in  all  points  of  religion,  I 
"  will  prefer  what  is  true  to  whatever  may  have  been  re- 
"  ceived,  and  what  is  written  to  \vhatever  is  not  written." 

From  these  authorities  it  appears,  I  presume,  beyond 
dispute,  that  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  church  of 
England  are  those,  on  which  alone  any  church  professing 
a  belief  in  a  particular  divine  revelation  can  be  consistent- 
ly founded. 

She  declares  the  scriptures  to  be  the  sole  repository  of 
all  religious  truths,  and  the  test  by  which  every  article  of 
the  faith  she  professes  must  ever  continue  liable  to  be  tri- 
ed. She  lays  down,  at  the  same  time,  a  certain  system  of 
doctrines,  as  what  she  conceives  the  scriptures  to  contain ; 
and  frames  her  offices  in  agreement  with  them.  But  de- 
claring that  other  churches  have  erred  ;  mindful  that  she 
separated  from  the  church  of  Rome  on  account  of  her  er- 
rors :  and  conscious  that  they  who  settled  her  own  rule 
of  faith  were  not  infallible  ;  she  enjoins  her  ministers,  with 
the  utmost  solemnity,  to  make  the  study  of  the  scriptures 
their  most  serious  concern  ;  in  order  that  by  the  triecj  and 
approved  result  of  their  progressive  inquiries  the  momen- 
tous doctrines,  and  important  rites  of  the  gospel  may  be 
the  more  accurately  understood,  and  the  more  conscien- 
tiously regarded. 

Such  is  the  genuine  spirit  of  the  church  of  England. 
And  whoever  of  her  sons,  embracing  her  establishment 
with  the  same  spuit,  exerts  his  endeavours,  with  becoming 
deference  and  care,  in  brightening  but  a  single  ray  of  the 
splendour  of  her  reformation  ;  manifests  a  proper  attention 
to  the  engagemeni:s  he  has  entered  into  ;  and  by  a  consis- 
tent adherence  to  the  original  principles  of  her  separation 
from  the  church  of  Rome,  pursues  the  very  plan  she  her- 
self has  pointed  out  for  obtamingthe  great  ends  of  her  in- 
,stitution. 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 
THE  general  inquiry  into  the  Authority,  Nature,  and  Design  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  ..;....  1 


APPENDIX. 

No.  1.     Further  proofs  of  the  designed  universality  and  perpetuity  of 

the  Lord's  Supper.  .  .  .  .  .         .         23 

No.  II.    What  conclusions  may  be  justly  drawn  from  the  natui*e  and 

effects  of  the  Paschal  Supper  to  those  of  the  Lord's  Supper.         31 

No.  III.  Inquiry  into  the  true  meaning  of  St.  Paul  in  the  1st  Epistle  to 

the  Corinthians  from  Chapter  x.  14.  to  xi.  1.  .  .  25 

No.  IV.  Inquiry  mto  the  apostle's  meaning  from  verse  20  to  34,  of  the 

xith  chapter  of  the  same  epistle.  .  .  .  .52 

No.  V.    Inqviiry  into  the  meaning  of  the  7th  and  8th  verses  of  the  vth 

chapter  of  the  same  epistle.  ....  59 

No.  VI.  Inquiry,  whetlier  any  information,  relating  to  the  nature  and 
effects  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  can  be  derived  from  the  discouse 
of  our  Lord  in  the  Synagogue  at  Capernaum  ;  recorded  in 
the  vith  chapter  of  the  gospel  of  St.  John.  .  .        .      64 

No.  VII.  Examination  of  Dr.  Cudworth's  ai-gument.  In  favour  of  his  own 
notion  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  as  founded  upon  what  St.  Paul 
has  said  of  it  in  the  xth  chapter  of  the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians. .......       71 

No.VIII.  Argument  to  shew,  that  Dr.  Cudworth's  notion  of  the  natui-e 
of  tlie  Lord's  Supper  is  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  gospel.  .....        80 


NOTES. 

On  page  28.  Mr.  Robert  Barclay's  argument,  to  prove  that  it  was  not 
uitended  by  our  Lord,  tliat  any  rite  should  be  celebrated, 
in  consequence  of  what  he  said  and  did  at  his  last  Sup- 
per ;  considered.  .....  87 

On  page  83.  An  argument  by  the  bishop  of  Meaux  in  favour  of  transub- 
stantiation  ;  and  Bishop  Warburton's  method  of  answer- 
ing it ;  considered.  .  .  .  ,         .        102 


ATTEMPT,  &c. 


SECTION  I. 

I.  X  HE  obligation  we  aie  under  to  celebrate  any 
religious  rite  is  founded  on  the  authority  of  the  person  by 
whom  it  is  instituted  ;  and  when  the  institutor  is  a  per- 
son authorized  to  reveal  the  will  of  God,  we  are  as  much 
obliged  to  celebrate  such  rite,  as  we  are  to  obey  any  oth- 
er particular  of  the  known  will  of  God. 

II.  The  true  design  of  every  religious  rite  must  de- 
pend entirely  upon  the  intention  of  the  institutor  himself 
with  regard  to  it. 

III.  The  intention  of  the  institutor  of  any  religious 
rite,  and  consequently  the  nature  and  design  of  the  rite 
itself,  must  be  learnt  from  the  declarations  of  the  institu- 
tor, considered  jointly  with  all  such  circumstances  as  he 
must  be  supposed  to  have  regarded  at  the  time  of  the  in- 
stitution ;  and  from  the  declarations  of  such  other  per- 
sons, if  any  such  there  are,  as  he  has  properly  authorized 
to  declare  his  intentions  relating  to  it ;  and  from  these  au- 
thorities only. 

SECTION  II. 

IV.  If  neither  the  words  of  the  institution  of  any  rite, 
nor  the  circumstances  in  which  it  was  instituted,  nor  the 
declarations  of  those  who  alone  are  duly  qualified  to  de- 
clai'e  its  design,  contain  or  imply  a  promise  of  any  pecu- 
liar rewards  attending  the  performance,  or  a  threatening 


2  The  authority^  nature^  and 

of  any  peculiar  punishments  attending  the  omission  of  it  j 
the  rewards,  or  punishments,  attending  the  performance 
or  omission  of  such  rite,  can  be  no  other,  than  the  good 
or  evil  arising  from  obedience  or  disobedience  to  any  ex- 
press command  of  the  institutor  ;  and  the  good  or  evil 
naturally  resulting  from  the  due  performance  or  omission 
of  the  actions  themselves,  in  which  the  right  consists. 

SECTION  III. 

V.  The  chi'istian  rite,  commonly  called  the  Lord's 
Supper, /^fl!>'  wasinstited  by  Jesus,  and  Jesus  was  divinely 
commissioned  to  reveal  the  will  of  God. 

VI.  The  apostles  and  evangelists,  including  St.  Paul, 
were  duly  authorized,  and  the  only  persons  so  authorized, 
to  preach  the  religion  of  Jesus,  and  declare  the  design  of 
such  rites  as  he  appointed. 

VII.  The  design  of  the  Lord's  Supper  must  be  learnt 
from  the  words  of  Jesus  himself  at  the  institution,  consid- 
ered jointly  w  ith  the  circumstances  attending  it ;  and  the 
.declarations  of  the  ^vriters  of  the  New  Testament  relating 
to  it ;  and  from  no  other  authorities  whatever. 

SECTION  IV. 

VIII.  The  history  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  delivered  by  the  vtTiters  of  the  New  Testament 
in  the  following  passages,  and  in  them  only  :  viz.  Matt. 
xxvi.  26,  &c.  Markxiv.  22,  &c.  Luke  xxii.  19,  &c. 
Paul,  1  Cor.  xi.  23,  &c.  and  what  they  have  each  related 
is  as  follows. 

Matt.  And  as  they  were  eating  Jesus  took  bread, 
Mark.  And  as  they  did  eat  Jesus  took  bread, 
Luke.  And  he  took  bread, 

Paul.  The  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  that  he  was  be- 
trayed, took  bread, 


(cf)  See  the  note  on  this  page  at  the  end  of  the  appendix. 


design  of  the  Lord^s  Supper.  3 

Matt.  And  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  ami  gave  to  his  dis- 
ciples, 

Mark.  And  blessed,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  to  them, 

Luke,  And  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  unto 
them, 

Paul.  And  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it, 

Matt.  And  said.   Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body, 
Mark.  And  said.   Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body, 
Luke.   Saying,   This  is  my  body, 
Paul.  And  said,   Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body, 

Luke.  Which  is  given  for  you  ;  This  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me  ; 

Paul.  IVIiich  is  broken  for  you  ;  This  do  in  remetn- 
brance  of  me. 

Matt.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks, 

Mark.     And  he  took  the  cup,  and  when  he  had  given 

thanks, 
Luke.  Likewise  also  the  cup,  after  supper, 
Paul.  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took   the  cup, 

when  he  had  supped, 

Matt.  And  gave  \tto  them,  saying.  Drink  ye  all  of  it  ; 
Mark.  He  gave  it  to  them,  and  they  all  drank  of  it ; 

Matt.  JFor  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament ;  fbj 
Mark.  And  he  said  unto  them.   This  is  my  blood  of  the 

Neiv  Testament, 
Luke.   Saying,   This  cup  is  the  Neiv  Testament  in  my 

blood, 
Paul.   Saying,   This  cup  is  the  Neiv  Testament  in  my 

blood  ; 

(b)  It  may  not  be  improper  to  remind  the  reader  here,  ones 
for  all,  of  what  has  often  been  remarked,  that  in  all  passages  where 
our  ti'anslation  adopts  the  term  New  Testam-ent,  it  would  have  been 
more  proper  to  have  used  the  word  Covenant,  as  that  expresses  the 
true  sense  of  the  word  AmStiKa  in  the  original,  which  the  M'^ord  Tes- 
tament does  not.  See  Bp.  Pearce's  note  on  Matt.  xxvi.  28.  vol  i. 
p.  183. 


4  The  authority^  nature,  aiid 

Matt.   Winch  is  shed  for  many, 
Mark.   JVhich  is  shed  for  many, 
Luke.   Which  is  shed  for  you. 


Matt.  For  remission  of  sins,  fcj 


Paul.   This  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance 
of  me. 

IX.  These  passages  containing  the  wholc^  history  of 
the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  have  transmitted  it  to  us  ;  all  conclusions 
relating  to  the  design  of  this  rite,  drawn  from  the  institu- 
tion itself,  must  be  founded  on  a  due  consideration  of  the 
declarations  of  our  Lord  here  related,  and  the  peculiar 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  made. 

SECTION  V. 

X.  Upon  a  joint  view  of  these  several  relations  it  ap- 
pears, that  all  our  Saviour  said  and  did,  in  instituting  the 
rite  under  consideration,  was  as  follows  : 

That  while  he  was  at  supper  with  the  twelve  he  broke 
a  piece  of  bread,  giving  thanks  to  God,  and  gave  it  to 
them  all,  saying  to  them,  Take,  eat  ;  this  is  my  body, 
■which  is  broken,  or  given,  for  you;  this  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me. 

And  that  after  supper  he  took  a  cup,  and  gave  it  to 
them,  saying.  Drink  ye  all  of  it  ;  for  this  is  my  blood  of 
the  New  Covenant  ;  or,  this  is  the  Ne^v  Covenant  in  my 
blood;  which  is  shed  for  you,  or  for  many,  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  ;  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remem- 
brance of  me. 

XL  From  these  accounts  given  us  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament of  what  Jesus  said  and  did  in  instituting  this  rite, 
it  evidently  appears  ; 

1st,  That  Jesus  commanded  the  Apostles  to  observe  a 
a  practice  of  breaking  and  eating  bread,  and  drinking 
wine,  together,  in  remembrance  of  him. 

(c)  See  the  note  on  this  page  at  the  end  of  the  appendix. 


design  of  the  Lord^s  Supper.  5 

When  he  gave  them  the  bread  he  said,  Take,  eat ;  this 
is  my  body,  which  is  given  for  you;  do  this  in  remem- 
brance of  me.  Here  were  two  perfectly  distinct,  and  posi- 
tive commands.  The  first,  to  eat  of  the  bread  he  then 
gave  them,  at  that  time ;  the  second,  to  eat  bread  from 
that  time  forward  in  remembrance  of  him.  The  words, 
Take,  eat,  accompanied  with  the  action  of  giving  them  the 
bread,  expressed  the  first ;  and  the  additional  injunction. 
Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me,  the  second ;  since  it  is  ev- 
ident, that  in  order  to  eat  bread  in  remembrance  of  him, 
they  must  of  necessity  do  it  after  he  should  be  taken 
from  them. 

And  this  being  clear  with  respect  to  the  bread,  there  is 
not  in  reality  any  occasion  for  a  distinct  proof  of  the 
same  points  with  regard  to  the  cup  ;  since  it  is  manifest, 
that  the  participation  of  the  one  was  intended  to  be  ac- 
companied with  that  of  the  other.  But  the  words  of  Je- 
sus will  equally  prove  the  certainty  of  the  institution  with 
regard  to  the  cup  likewise. 

When  he  gave  them  the  cup  he  said.  Drink  ye  all  of 
it  ;  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  JVew  Covenant,  which  is 
shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins  ;  this  do  ye,  as  of: 
as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  Here  the  words, 
drink  ye  all  of  it,  accompanied  with  the  action  of  giving 
them  the  cup,  were  a  positive  command  to  drink  of  that 
cup,  at  that  time  ;  and  the  additional  injunction,  This  do 
ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me,  immediately 
following  the  express  injunction  to  drink  at  that  time,  as 
well  as  the  positive  command  to  eat  bread  in  remembrajice 
of  him,  was  as  positive  a  command  to  do  this  after  he 
should  be  taken  from  them ;  clearly  signifying  by  the 
new  clause,  as  oft  as  ye  dritik  it,  that  they  were  not  to  do 
this  once  only  after  he  should  have  been  put  to  death,  but 
to  repeat  it  as  a  standing  ordinance  ;  though  at  the  same 
time  leaving  it  to  their  discretion  to  determine  how  fre- 
quently they  should  do  it.fdj 

2dly,  It  appears  from  the  relations  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  Jesus  commanded  the  Apostles  to  do  this,  not 

(d)  See  the  note  on  this  page  at  the  end  of  the  Appendix. 


6  The  authority y  nature^  and 

as  a  mere  general  remembrance  of  himself;  but  that  they 
should  eat  the  breads  as  a  memorial  of  his  body,  broken, 
or  given  for  them  ;  and  consequently  both  together  as  me- 
morials of  his  death  ;  and  further,  of  his  suffering  death 
for  many^  that  is  for  all,  yor  remission  of  sins. 

And  this  likewise  proves  it  to  have  been  the  intention 
of  Jesus,  that  the  rite  should  be  observed  after  his  death ; 
since  they  w€re  to  regard  the  bread  as  a  memorial  of  his 
body  given  for  them,  and  the  wine  of  his  blood  shed  for 
them  ;  which  it  was  absolutely  impossible  for  them  to  do, 
till  after  he  should  have  been  actually  put  to  death. 

3dly,  It  appears,  that  the  words  and  actions  of  our 
Lord  in  instituting  this  rite,  considered  in  themselves,  do 
neither  express,  nor  imply,  any  thing  more  as  contained 
in  this  rite,  than  ;vhat  has  now  been  explained. 

4thl}',  More  particularly  it  appears,  that  the  words  and 
actions  of  Jesus  on  this  occasion,  considered  in  themselves, 
do  not  contain  or  imply,  either  a  promise  of  aoy  special 
reward,  that  should  attend  the  pei-formance  of  this  rite  ; 
or  a  threatening  of  any  special  punishment,  that  should 
attend  the  omission  of  it  ;  or  any  thing  more,  than  a  plain 
description  of  the  rite  itself,  and  a  positive  command  to 
celebrate  it. 

SECTION  VI. 

XII.  The  Lord's  Supper  was  not  instituted  by  Jesus 
for  the  observation  of  the  apostles  alone,  but  was  enjoined 
by  him  for  a  standing  rite  of  his  religion,  to  be  perpetual- 
ly celebrated  by  all  who  should  e^'er  profess  themselves 
his  disciples. 

As  the  apostles  were  the  only  persons  present  at  the  in- 
stitution of  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  may  possibly  be  thought 
we  cannot  be  certain,  from  Jesus's  command  to  them  to 
celebrate  it,  that  he  meant  it  to  be  obser^•ed  by  all  who 
should  ever  believe  in  him  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Yet 
this  is,  in  the  first  place,  only  not  absolutely  certain,  even 
from  the  very  words  of  Jesus  in  the  institution  itself. 

He  expressly  directed  them  all  to  do  what  he  then  pre- 
scribed ;  and  not  at  that  time  only,  but  to  repeat  it,  as  a 


design  of  the  Lord'^s  supper,  7 

practice  appointed  by  him,  after  he  should  be  put  to 
death; fej  without  adding  any  intimation  that  they  were 
ever  to  discontinue  it ;  and  the  reason  he  assigned  for  en- 
joining it,  tliat  he  suffered  death yo?'  many ^  for  remission  of 
sim,  was  neither  peculiarly  applicable  to  the  apostles,  nor 
to  any  particular  period  of  time.  And  since  the  reason  he 
assigned  for  instituting  the  rite  is  no  less  applicable  to  all 
universally  who  shall  ever  believe  in  Christ,  than  it  was 
originally  to  die  apostles  ;  and  he  commanded  all  who 
were  present  to  celebrate  it,  without  any  direction  what- 
ever, either  to  confine  the  celebration  of  it  afterwards  ta 
themselves,^  or  to  discontinue  it  at  any  future  period ;  it 
would,  I  apprehend,  be  contraiy  to  every  principle  of  rea- 
sonable interpretation  to  suppose,  that  he  did  not  intend 
it  for  a  perpetual  and  universal  rite  of  his  religion. 

And  this  obvious  conclusion,  from  Jesus's  words  alone, 
will  derive  no  little  additional  strength  from  the  particular 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  delivered.  At  the  time 
v/hen  Jesus  gave  the  aposdes  these  injunctions,  he  was  cel- 
ebrating with  them  the  Paschal  Supper,  which  was  insti- 
tuted by  tlie  law  of  Moses  for  a  perpetual  memorial  of  the 
deliverance  of  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt,  to  be  solemnly 
celebrated  by  every  Jew.ffJ  And  since  it  is  indisputa- 
ble, that  Jesus  designed  the  christian  rite  he  instituted  at 
this  time  to  be,  in  like  manner,  a  memorial  of  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  world,  tlirough  his  death,  for  the  remission  of 
sins  ;  we  are  absolutely  bound  to  conclude  from  every 
circumstance  accompanying  the  institution,  that  Jesus  in- 
tended it  to  be  a  perpetual  rite  of  his  own  religion,  as  the 
Passover  was  of  the  Jewish  ;  and  to  be  universally  cele- 
brated by  every  Christian,  as  the  Passover  was  enjoined 
to  be,  and  actually  was,  by  every  itw.fgj 

(e)  See  pages  4,  5. 

(f)  See  Exod.  xii.    14,    17,  25—27.    xiii.    8—10.  xxiii.    15. 
xxxiv.   18.     Deut.  xvi.  1,  3,  6. 

(g)  For  further  arguments  in  proof  of  this  fundamental  pointy 
the  reader  will  consult  No.  I  of  the  Appendix. 


S  The  authority  J  nature,  and 

SECTION  VII. 

The  Lord's  Supper  being  established  as  a  standing  rite 
of  the  religion  of  the  gospel,  the  next  point  to  be  ascer- 
tained is,  what  effects  arise  from  the  performance  or  neg- 
lect of  it. 

XIII.  All  the  benefits  we  are  warranted  in  expecting 
from  the  due  ^performance  of  any  rite  instituted  by  Jesus, 
to  which  no  special  benefits  have  been  positively  annexed, 
can  be  no  other  than  these  : 

1st,  That  approbation  of  God,  which  an  intentional 
compliance  with  his  will  must  certainly  procure.     And 

2dly,  Whatever  additional  strength  our  principles  and 
habits  of  virtue  may  naturally  acquire  by  the  celebration 
of  any  religious  rite,  owing  to  the  virtuous  tendency  of 
the  right  itself. 

XIV.  All  the  evils  we  are  warranted  in  apprehending 
from  the  omission  of  any  rite  instituted  by  Jesus,  to  the 
omission  of  which  no  special  evils  have  been  positively  an- 
nexed, can  be  no  other  than  these  : 

1st,  That  disapprobation  of  God,  which  an  intentional 
disobedience  to  his  will  must  certainly  produce.     And 

2dly,  The  loss  of  whatever  additional  strength  our 
principles  and  habits  of  virtue  might  naturally  acquire  by 
the  celebration  of  any  particular  religious  rite,  owing  to 
the  virtuous  tendency  of  the  rite  itself. 

XV.  Since  neither  the  words,  nor  the  actions  of  Jesus 
in  instituting  the  Lord's  Supper,  do  in  themselves  contain, 
or  imply,  a  promise  of  any  special  benefits  to  reward  the 
celebration  of  this  rite ;  or  a  tlireatening  of  any  special 
evils  to  punish  the  omission  of  it ;  it  must  be  granted, 
that  there  neither  are,  nor  can  be,  any  other  benefits  at- 
tending the  performance,  nor  any  other  evils  attending  the 
omission  of  it,  than  those  just  described  in  propositions 
XIII  and  XIV  ;  unless  it  shall  be  found,  either  that  some 
circumstances  yet  unnoticed  accompanied  the  institution 
of  it,  which  will  give  some  peculiar  meaning  to  the  words 
and  actions  of  our  Lord  in  the  institution ;  or,  that  the 
apostles  in  their  writings  hwxQ  communicated  to  us  some 


design  of  the  Lord^s  Supper.  9 

particulars  of  its  nature  and  effects,  which  neither  the 
words  nor  actions  of  Jesus  in  the  institution  itself,  nor 
tlie  circumstances  attending  it,  imply. 

SECTION  VIII. 

XVI.  This  peculiar  circumstance  attended  the  institu- 
tion of  the  christian  rite  in  question;  That  the  Supper  at 
which  it  was  instituted  was  not  a  mere  common  meal, 
but  the  Paschal  Supper,  a  very  remarkable  rite  of  the  Jew- 
ish law. 

XVII.  It  is  likewise  certain  that  Jesus  was  accustom- 
ed to  allude,  both  in  his  words  and  his  actions,  to  those 
peculiar  circumstances  and  situations  in  which  he  was 
speaking  or  acting. 

XVIII.  If  therefore  we  should  find  any  manifest  resem- 
blance between  the  christian  rite,  which  we  call  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  that  Jewish  rite,  which  Jesus  was  celebrating 
with  the  twelve  at  the  time  of  its  institution,  we  may  rea- 
sonably infer,  that  it  was  the  design  of  our  Lord  to  make 
the  one  so  far  bear  resemblance  to  the  other.     But, 

XIX.  Neither  that  resemblance  which  subsists  between 
the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  Jewish  Paschal  Supper,  nor 
any  possible  allusion  in  the  institution  of  the  one  to  die 
other,  can  warrant  us  in  supposing,  that  any  other  benefits 
or  evils  attend  the  celebration  or  omission  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  than  those  already  mentioned,  as  necessarily  aris- 
ing from  the  institution  itself,  in  propositions  XIII  and 
^W.fhJ 

XX.  It  cannot  be  supposed,  that  Jesus  intended  to  give 
the  rite  he  himself  instituted,  a  resemblance  to  any  other 
Jewish  rite  besides  the  Paschal  Supper.  For  it  was  the 
Paschal  Supper  only,  which  he  was  celebrating  with  the 
twelve,  when  he  instituted  his  own  rite  ;  and  there  is  no 
other  Jewish  memorial  to  wliich  it  bears  any  resemblances 
This  is  so  evident  as  to  need  no  proof. 

(h)  For  the  proof  of  this  assertion  see  Appendix  No.  11, 
B 


10  The  autlwrity,  nature^  atul 

SECTION  IX. 

XXI.  It  would  be  manifestly  unreasonable,  and  in- 
deed utterly  unwarrantable  to  suppose,  that  it  could  be  the 
intention  of  Jesus,  wdien  instituting  the  christian  rite  in 
question,  to  give  it  any  resembUmce  to,  or  make  its  na- 
ture and  effects  in  any  degree  whatever  correspondent 
with,  those  of  any  heathen  rite.  He,  who  came  to  abolisli 
all  the  religious  systems  of  the  heathens,  could  not  mean 
to  institute  one  of  the  distinguishing  rites  of  his  own 
religion  in  imitation  of  any  of  theirs.  ^/V 

But  if  it  had  been  possible  for  him  to  have  entertained 
this  design,  it  is  certain  that  in  fiict  he  did  not. 

It  is  self-evident  Jesus  could  not  but  be  well  aAvare, 
that  when  he  was  celebrating  the  Pasclial  Supper  with  the 
twelve,  in  obedience  to  the  law  of  Moses,  their  thoughts 
must  have  been  totally  withdrawn  from  the  consideration 
of  all  heathen  rites,  which  they  held,  and  by  their  law  were 
commanded  to  hold,  in  utter  abomination.  If  therefore 
he  had  designed  to  make  the  nature  and  effect  of  his  own 
institution  correspond  Avith  those  of  any  heathen  rite,  he 
must  of  necessity  have  explained  this  design  to  the 
Twelve,  either  at  the  time  or  afterwards  ;  since  without 
this  explanation  it  would  have  been  absolutely  impossible 
for  them  to  have  conceived  it ;  and  they,  for  the  same 
reasons,  must  in  that  case  have  expressly  mentioned  this 
design  of  Jesus,  as  he  had  imparted  it  to  them,  \vhen  they 
came  to  relate  the  histoiy  of  the  institution  itself,  in  their 
gospels. 

Since  therefore  they  have  not  recorded  any  thing  of 
this  kindj  it  must  be  allowed,  that  Jesus  neither  had,  nor 
could  have  any  design  of  making  the  nature  and  effects 

CiJ  The  rite  itself  which  Jesus  instituted,  which  consisted  of 
nothing  more  than  tasting  bread  and  wine  in  religious  commemo- 
ration of  some  peculiar  circumstances  of  his  death,  had  not  in 
reality  any  resemblance  to  a  feast,  religious  or  not  religious  ; 
thovigh  the  common  supper,  which  the  first  Christians  for  some 
time  thought  proper  to  eat  together,  when  met  to  celebrate  this 
rite,  so  far  as  it  was  a  meal  eaten  at  that  time,  necessarily  had. 


design  of  the  JLo7-d^s  Supper.  11 

of  the  Eucharist  in  any  degree  similar  to  the  supposed 
nature  and  effects  of  any  heathen  rites ;  and  consequently 
that  the  one  cannot  admit  of  any  explanation  from  the 
other.  In  fact,  the  opposite  supposition  appeai"s  so  man- 
ifestly inadmissible,  that  had  it  not  been  actudly  contended 
for,  it  need  not  have  been  mentioned. 

SECTION  X. 

XXII.  Since  from  the  history  of  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  it  is  highly  reasonable  to  believe,  1st, 
That  in  it  Jesus  did  allude  to  the  Paschal  Supper,  but  not 
to  any  other  Jewish  rite  ;  and  2dly,  That  he  did  not  at 
all  allude  to  any  Pagan  rite  :  And  since  no  resemblance 
whatever  to  the  Paschal  Supper  can  make  the  Eucharist 
any  thing  different  from  what  the  words  of  the  institution 
prove  it  to  be  ^fkj  it  must  be  allowed,  that  as  far  as  the 
nature  of  this  rite  can  be  ascertained  from  the  words  of 
the  institution,  considered  jointly  with  all  the  peculiar 
circumstances  accompanying  it,  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
specifically,  A  memorial  of  our  Lord ;  but  more  especially 
of  his  death,  and  the  general  purpose  for  which  he  died ; 
having  no  other  benehts  annexed  to  the  celebration,  nor 
any  other  e^'ils  to  the  omission  of  it,  than  those  necessarily 
attending  the  celebration  or  omission  of  any  other  pos- 
itive rite  under  the  christian  dispensation  ;  explained  al- 
ready in  propositions  XIII  and  XIV. 

XXIII.  But  since  it  is  certain  that  Jesus  did  by  no 
means  completely  instruct  his  disciples  in  the  nature  of 
his  religion,  while  he  was  \\dth  them  ;  but  left  them  to  be 
further  instructed  in  it  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  after  he  should 
be  taken  from  them  ;  and  since  it  is  therefore  possible 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  might  afterwards  inform  them  of 
something  peculiar  to  this  rite,  of  which  Jesus  himself 
had  not  apprized  them  ;  it  is  incumbent  on  us  to  inquire, 
whether  the  Apostles,  in  their  writings,  have  communi- 
cated to  us  any  information  relating  to  the  nature  and 

(k)  See  Appendix,  No.  II. 


12  The  authority^  nature,  and 

design  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  more  than  we  have  been 
able  to  derive  from  the  history  they  have  given  us  of  the 
institution  itself. 

SECTION  XL 

XXIV.  The  most  remarkable  passage  in  the  New 
Testament  relating  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  besides  diose 
already  considered,  which  give  us  the  history  of  its  insti- 
tution, occurs  in  St.  Paul's  1st  Epist.  to  the  Corinthians, 
and  extends  from  chap.  x.  14.  to  chap.  xi.  1.  But  no 
further  information  concerning  the  nature  and  design  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  communicated  to  us  in  this  piissage 
by  St.  Paul,  than  has  already  been  deduced  from  the 
history  of  its  institution.  ^/^ 

XXV.  The  next  passage  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
which  mention  is  made  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  likewise 
in  the  1st  Epist.  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  and  oc- 
curs in  ch.  xi.  from  ver.  20  to  ver.  34.  But  neither  in 
this  passage  has  the  Apostle  imparted  to  us  any  informa- 
tion relating  to  the  nature  and  design  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, in  addition  to  what  Ave  are  furnished  with  b}-^  the  his- 
tory of  its  institution.^;?/^ 

XXVI.  There  still  remains  another  passage  of  St. 
Paul's  1st  Epist.  to  the  Corintliians,  which,  if  left  uncon- 
sidered, might  possibly  give  occasion  to  some  confused 
doubts,  whether  that  account  of  the  nature  and  design  of 
the  Lord's. Supper,  which  we  have  been  forced  to  admit 
from  considering  all  the  circumstances  attending  its  in- 
stitution, is  a  complete  account  of  it,  or  not.  But  so  far 
is  this  passage  from  commmunicating  to  us  any  new  in- 
telligence rekviing  to  the  design  of  the  rite  in  question, 
that  in  fact  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  even  so  much  as 
alluded  to  in  '\t.(n} 

XXVII.  It  has  by  many  been  supposed,  that  the 
most  important  benefits  ai'e  attributed,  even  by  Jesus 

» 
(I)  For  the  proof  of  this  see  the  Appendix,  No.  III. 
(m)  For  the  proof  of  this  see  the  Appendix,  No.  IV. 
(n)  For  the  proof  of  this  see  the  Appendix,  No.  V. 


design  of  he  Lord^s  Supper.  13 

himself,  to  the  celebration  of  this  rite,  in  some  expressions 
of  his  recorded  by  St.  John  in  the  6th  chapter  of  his 
Gospel  :  But  no  conclusions  whatever,  relating  to  the 
nature  and  effects  of  this  rite,  can  be  justly  founded  on 
those  expressions  ',foJ  nor  are  there  any  passages  in 
the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  besides  those  which  have 
now  been  considered,  from  m  hich  any  paiticulars  of  the 
nature  and  design  of  the  Lord's  Supper  can  be  learnt. 

XXVIII.  From  a  due  consideration  therefore  of  the 
history  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  including 
the  words  and  actions  of  our  Lord  in  the  institution  itself, 
and  the  peculiar  circumstances  attending  it  ;  as  well  as 
from  an  examination  of  all  the  passages  in  the  writings 
of  tlie  Apostles  relating  to  it ;  it  appears,  that  the  Lord's 
Stipper  is  specifically,  A  religious  memorial  of  our 
Lord,  but  more  especially  of  his  death,  and  the  general 
purpose  for  which  he  died  ;  which  has  not  any  other 
benefits  annexed  to  the  celebration,  nor  any  other  evils  to 
the  omission  of  it,  than  those  necessarily  attending  the 
celebration  or  omission  of  any  positive  rite  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  explained  already  in  propositions 
XIII  and  XIV. 

SECTION  XII. 

XXIX.  From  the  actions  of  which  this  rite  consists, 
one  principal  design  of  Jesus  in  ordaining  it  appears  to 
have  been,  that  of  obliging  all,  who  should  ever  come  to 
believe  in  him,  to  meet  together  for  the  celebmtion  of  a 
rite,  which  would  not  only  be  a  solemn  profession  of  the 
Christian  faith  ;  but  a  memorial  of  one  of  the  most  sig- 
nal and  importmt  events,  by  means  of  which  that  faith 
was  established. 

XXX.  And  as  the  celebration  of  this  rite  ;  with  those 
serious  and  thankful  acknowledgments,  which  the  vol- 
untary sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus,  for  the  redemption 
of  man,  commemorated  in  it,  evidently  require  ;  has  a 

(o)  lu  proof  of  this  see  the  Appendix,  No.  VI. 


14  The  authority^  nature,  and 

direct  and  strong  tendency  to  strengthen  our  religious 
principles  and  improve  our  practice,  and  thus  to  promote 
all  the  great  objects  of  the  gospel ;  it  seems  highly  rea- 
sonable to  conclude,  that,  in  the  institution  of  this  rite, 
our  Saviour  had  likewise  a  design  of  contributing  to 
promote  by  it  this  beneficial  effect. 

In  addition  to  these  two  designs,  which  cannot  admit 
of  doubt ;  as  his  ordaining  a  ceremony  in  commemora- 
tion of  his  own  death,  for  the  remission  of  sin,  before 
his  apprehension,  and  while  he  had  it  in  his  power  to  act 
as  he  chose,  is  one  very  strong  circumstantial  proof,  that 
he  did  not  suffer  death,  as  it  might  have  been  objected, 
by  compulsion  ;  but  with  his  own  foreknowledge  and 
consent ;  on  purpose  to  complete  a  dispensation  which 
the  wisdom  of  God  thought  fit  to  adopt  for  the  redemj5- 
tion  of  man  ;  it  seems  no  unwaiTantable  supposition, 
that  the  giving  this  collateral  proof  of  the  truth  of  his 
divine  chaiacter,  might  be  another  end  he  proposed  to 
answer  by  this  institution. 

SECTION  XIII. 

XXXI.  The  true  nature  of  any  religious  rite  being 
known,  every  tiling  necessary  to  the  due  celebration  of  it, 
and  all  the  effects  arising  from  it,  must  from  thence  be 
determined. 

XXXII.  The  Lord's  Supper  being  precisely,  A  me- 
morial of  our  Lord,  but  more  especially  of  his  death, 
and  the  general  purpose  for  which  he  died  ; — Whoever 
eats  the  bread  and  drinks  the  wme,  at  the  celebration  of 
this  rite,  in  designed  remembrance  of  our  Lord,  but 
more  especially  of  his  death  and  the  general  purpose  for 
which  he  died,  does  truly  and  properly  fulfil  the  command 
of  Jesus  in  this  institution,  so  far  as  relates  only  to  the 
immediate  action  of  which  the  rite  consists. 

XXXIII.  Since  the  act  of  eating  bread  and  drinking 
wine  in  remembrance  of  Jesus,  but  more  especially  of 
his  death,  and  the  general  purpose  for  which  he  died, 
should  naturally   lead  us  to  the  njost  serious  reflections 


design  of  the  Lord^s  Suppet.  15 

upon  the  goodness  of  God  in  appointing-  the  plan  for  our 
redemption,  and  that  of  our  Lord  in  fulfilling  the  part  he 
stistained  in  it ;  together  with  the  accumulated  obligations 
we  aie  thus  laid  under  to  fulfil  the  terms  of  our  salvation, 
and  the  fatal  consequence  of  disregarding  them  ;  we  are 
bound  to  consider  it  as  the  unquestionable  intention  of 
our  Lord  in  ordaining  this  rite,  that  we  should  seriously 
apply  the  celebration  of  it  to  this  excellent  purpose. 
Whoever  therefore  joins  in  this  rite,  without  being  care- 
ful to  make  this  use  of  it  ;  though  he  may  actually  eat  the 
bread  and  drink  the  wine  in  remembrance  of  our  Lord, 
and  his  death  ;  does  not  make  such  a  use  of  this  com- 
memoration of  him,  as  the  plain  reason  of  the  thing,  and 
the  moral  doctrines  of  the  gospel  require. 

XXXIV.  The  rite  itself  as  instituted  by  our  Lord, 
consisting  of  nothing  more  than  the  actions  of  eating 
bread  and  druiking  wine,  with  the  intention  prescribed ; 
whatever  prayers  any  Church  may  think  fit  to  adopt,  as 
well  as  whatever  form  of  words  they  may  appoint  for 
the  officiating  person  to  make  use  of,  in  distributing  the 
bread  and  wine ;  in  a  word,  whatever  is  said  or  done  at 
the  celebration  of  this  rite,  except  the  distribution  and 
partaking  of  the  bread  and  wine,  with  the,  professed 
design  already  mentioned ;  is  no  part  of  the  rite  itself,  as 
ordained  by  our  Lord,  but  must  resc  entirely  upon  human 
prudence  and  authority  ;  and  is  so  far  proper,  but  only  so 
far,  as  it  may  be  wisely  calculated  to  remind  the  partici- 
paiit  of  the  paiticular  design,  which  is  essential  to  the 
due  performance  of  the  rite  ;  and  to  excite  those  dispo- 
sitions of  piety  and  virtue,  to  which  the  celebration  of 
this  rite  naturally  leads,  and  with  which  it  evidently  ought 
to  be  accompanied.^/?^ 

(fi)  This  proposition  is  to  be  understood  with  one  limitation. 
When  Jesus  took  the  bread  and  the  cup,  in  order  to  give  them  to 
the  Apostles,  before  he  gave  them  he  used  a  form  of  thanksgiving, 
customary  at  that  time,  over  them  :  and  from  St.  Paul  we  find 
(i  Cor.  X.  16,  The  cufi  of  blessing  -which  we  bless  ;)  that  the  Apos- 
tles observed  the  same  practice.  Though  therefore  it  does  not 
appear,  that  this  thanksgiving  was  essential  to  the  rite,  as  a  com- 


X6  The  authority^  nature^  and 

SECTION  XIV. 

XXXV.  The  Lord's  Supper  having  been  instituted 
by  Jesus,  Avithout  his  annexing  any  special  benefits  to  the 
celebration  of  it,  the  benefits  certainly  arising  from  the 
dtie  celebration  of  it  can  be  no  other  than  these  : 

1st,  That  approbation  of  the  Almighty,  which  a 
voluntarj^  obedience  to  his  commands,  upon  the  sincere 
principles  of  religion  and  piety,  must  certainly  procure  : 
and, 

2dly,  Whate^^er  strengthening  of  our  principles  and 
habits  of  virtue  will  naturally  arise  from  the  serious  and 
due  performance  of  a  rite,  in  which  the  death  of  our 
Lord,  and  the  general  purpose  for  which  he  died,  are  the 
very  things  commemorated. /^^^^ 

XXXVI.  The  Lord's  Supper  having  been  instituted 
by  Jesus,  without  his  annexing  any  special  evils  to  the 
omission  of  it,  the  evils  unavoidably  incurred  by  the 
omission  of  it  can  be  no  other  than  these  : 

1st,  That  disapprobation  of  the  Almighty,  which 
designed  disobedience  to,  or  the  careless  neglect  of  his 
commands,  must  certainly  occasion  :  and, 

2dly,  The  loss  of  all  that  improvement  of  our  virtu- 
ous habits  and  dispositions,  which  would  naturally  arise 
from  the  serious  and  due  performance  of  a  rite,  in  which 
the  death  of  our  Lord,  and  the  general  purpose  for  which 
he  died,  are  the  very  things  commemorated,  (r) 

XXXVII.  The  demerits  of  a  thoughtless,  light,  un- 
worthy manner  of  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper,  must 
wholly  depend  upon  the  actual  ill  principles  and  inten- 
tion ;  or  at  least  die  culpable  want  of  good  principles, 
and  a  good  intention  ;  in  every  particular  instance,  and 
in  each  particular  person  ;  of  ^vhich  God  alone  can  judge. 

memoration  of  our  Lord  ;  nor  can  we  be  absolutely  certain  that 
Jesus  designed  it  to  be  regarded  as  strictly  a  part  of  the  rite  ;  yet 
certainly,  in  imitation  of  his  example,  and  the  practice  of  the 
Apostles,  some  form  of  this  kind  may  with  peculiar  propriety,  at 
least,  be  introduced  in  the  celebration  of  it. 

(q)  See  Prop.  XIII  and  XXVIII. 

(r)   See  Prop.  XIV  and  XXVIII. 


design  of  the  Lord^s  Supper.  17 

XXXVIII.  The  Lord's  Supper  having  been  instituted 
without  any  special  punishments  annexed  to  a  thoughtless, 
light,  unworthy  manner  of  celebrating  it  ',fsj  the  punish- 
ment, incurred  by  such  a  manner  of  receiving  it,  must  be 
regulated  by  the  personal  demerits  of  each  individual  in 
each  particular  instance. 

XXXIX.  Should  any  one  be  sincerely  convinced,  that 
tlie  Lord's  Supper  was  not  instituted  by  Jesus  for  a 
standing  rite  of  his  religion,  but  merely  for  the  observance 
of  the  Apostles  themselves  who  were  present  at  the  in- 
stitution ;  no  punishment  whatever  \vill  be  incurre'd  by 
him  for  omitting  to  celebrate  it  under  this  persuasion ; 
but  he  must  be  answerable  for  the  honest,  or  dishonest 
use  he  made  of  his  understanding,  in  consequence  of 
which  he  embraced  this  opinion. 

SECTION  XV. 

XL.  It  is  in  the  power  of  God  to  produce  whatever 
ideas  he  may  please  in  the  mind  of  man  ;  and  by  that 
means  to  afford  us  such  assistance  as  his  wisdom  may  see 
fit,  towards  the  practice  of  our  moral  and  religious  du- 
ties, by  the  unperceived  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 

XLI.  These  gracious  influences  of  the  Spirit,  which, 
whenever  communicated,  are  so  many  instances  of  the 
divine  goodness  towards  us,  may  be  vouchsafed  to  us 
either  at  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  in  the 
performance  of  any  other  act  of  religious  worship,  or  upon 
any  other  occasion  whatever,  though  no  way  immediately 
connected  with  divine  worship  ;  as  often  as  the  wisdom 
and  goodness  of  God  shall  see  fit  to  vouchsafe  them :  but 
we  have  not  any  promise,  or  even  any  the  slightest  inti- 
mation, either  from  our  Lord  himself,  or  any  of  the  Apos- 
tles, or  Evangelists,  of  their  being  peculiarly  conferred 

(s)  That  the  temporal  punishments  which  St.  Paul  informed 
the  Cormthians  had  overtaken  them,  for  their  disorderly  behavioui: 
while  assembled  together  for  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
are  no  way  inconsistent  with  what  is  here  advanced,  see  what  is 
said  relating  to  them  at  th€  close  of  No.  IV  of  the  Appendix. 
c 


18  The  authority,  nature,  and 

upon  us,  on  account  of  our  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

XLII.  Whatever  spiritual  assistance  the  goodness  of 
God  may  at  any  time  vouch.safc  to  man,  the  reason  of  the 
thmg  forces  us  to  believe,  that  it  will  not  be  vouchsafed 
us  in  the  most  ample  degree,  on  account  of  the  mere  per- 
formance of  any  religious  rites,  or  any  acts  of  religious 
worship  ;  but  on  those  tr}^ing  occasions,  in  the  various 
difficulties  of  active  life,  \vhen  the  circumstances  we  are 
placed  in  bring  the  strength  of  our  virtuous  and  religious 
principles  to  the  severest  proof;  and  when,  under  such 
trials,  we  actually  exert  the  greatest  degi^ee  of  \'irtue  ; 
and  at  the  same  time  ap]Dly,  with  the  properest  disposi- 
tion, for  the  divine  assistance  to  strengdien  our  own 
weakness,  and  enable  us  to  support  the  part  which  virtue 
and  religion  require. 

XLIII.  But  comparing  together  our  acts  of  religious 
worship,  w  ith  respect  to  the  natural  tendency  of  the  acts 
themselves  ;  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  which  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Christ,  and  the  general  puq^ose  for  which  he 
died,  are  the  very  things  commemorated,  is,  of  all  mere 
acts  of  religious  worship,  naturally,  in  itself,  adapted  to 
possess  our  minds  most  strongly  w  ith  religious  reflections  ; 
and  to  induce  as  well  as  to  enable  us  to  strengthen  most 
effectually  eveiy  virtuous  resolution  ;  and  so  far  to  ren- 
der us  deserving  of,  and  thus  enable  us  to  obtain,  the 
greatest  share  of  assistance  from  above. 

SECTION  XVL 

XLIV.  Pai'taking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  does  so  far 
contribute  to  our  future  salvation,  as  it  is  a  designed  com- 
pliance with  an  express  command  of  our  Lord,  naturally 
productive  of  those  benefits  already  explained,  in  Propo- 
sitions XXXV  and  XLL  But  the  performance  of  this 
rite  has  no  influence,  peculiar  to  itself,  in  procuring  for  us 
a  state  of  happiness  hereafter,  nor  can  it  at  all  contribute 
towards  our  obtaining  it,  by  any  odier  means,  than  the 
virtuous  effects  we  take  care  to  make  it  productive  of,  in 
our  principles  and  our  practice. — Refusing  to  partake  of 


desigJt  of  the  Lord^s  Supper.  19 

the  Lord's  Supper  does  so  far  endanger  our  salvation,  as 
it  is  in  any  instance  an  act  of  voluntaiy  disobedience ^^^ 
to  an  acknowledged  command  of  our  Lord,  naturally 
productive  of  the  evils  described  in  Proposition  XXXVI. 
— .\nd  performing  the  outward  actions  of  eating  and 
diinking  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  without  seriously  reflecting 
upon  the  particular  events  commemorated  in  it,  and  the 
influence  they  ought  to  have  upon  our  own  conduct, 
does  so  far  endanger  our  salvation,  as  it  contains,  in  each 
distinct  instance,  a  certain  degree  of  want  of  religious 
principle,  and  a  culpable  insensibility  of  the  sufferings  of 
our  Lord,  and  the  blessings  of  our  redemption  ;  of  the 
guilt  of  which,  in  every  distinct  instance,  God  alone  is 
the  proper  judge. 

XLV.  If  ever  the  bread  and  wine  ai*e  received, 
whether  by  the  well,  the  sick,  or  the  dying,  as  an  appoint- 
ed means  of  obtaining  the  remission  of  sins  ;  or  in  any 
other  light,  than  merely  as  an  act  of  due  obedience  to  a  pos- 
itive command  of  our  Lord,  naturally  expressive  of  faith 
in  him  ;  and  when  seriously  performed,  as  naturally  con- 
ducive to  all  such  dispositions  as  that  faith  requires  ;  the 
participant  is  deceived,  and  the  right  itself  perverted. 

XL  VI.  To  live  in  the  belief  of  the  christian  religion, 
and  yet  to  refuse  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  ex- 
cept in  the  case  of  a  conscientious  persuasion,  that  this 
right  was  designed  by  our  Lord  for  the  observation  of 
tlie  Apostles  alone  ;  is  living,  in  this  instance,  in  a  vol- 
untary habit  of  sin;  because  in  an  habitual  disobedience 
to  a  command  acknowledged  to  be  divine  :fuj  and  in 
this  particular  sin  are  included  these  aggravating  circum- 
stances, that  it  is  a  voluntary  contempt  of  an  express 
command  of  our  Lord,  extremely  easy  to  be  complied 
with  ;  given  at  the  very  time  when  he  was  going  to  suf- 
fer for  our  sakes  ;  expressly  intended  to  recal  to  our  re- 
membrance the  sufferings  he  voluntarily  underwent  to 
promote  our  good  ;  and  on  that  account  not  only  the 

(t)  See  Proposition  XXXIX. 

f  «JSee  the  note  on  this  page  at  the  end  of  the  Appendix^ 


26'  The  authority y  nature^  and 

most  solemn  right  of  his  reUgion,  but  tl    ;.  which  gratitude 
ought  to  render  us  pecuhafly  wiUing  to  celebrate. 

XL VII.  Neither  our  Lord  himself,  nor  the  Apostles, 
having  given  us  any  precept  to  determine  how  often  we 
ought  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  no  precise  limits 
can  be  assigned  to  our  duty  in  this  particular.  But  since 
we  are  absolutely  obliged  to  assist  at  this  rite,  by  the  ex- 
press command  of  our  Lord;/^a?>'  since  the  excellent, 
moral  and  religious  tendency  of  the  rite  itself  is  evident 
beyond  question  ;  and  since  we  know  the  Apostles 
taught  the  first  christians  to  partake  of  it  very  often  ;  it 
must  certainly  be  incumbent  on  us  to  join  in  it  so  fre- 
quently, according  to  the  circumstances  in  which  \\'e  may 
happen  to  be  placed,  as  to  sho^v  plainly,  that  we  regard  it 
as  one  positive  duty  of  the  religion  of  Christ  ;  and,  for 
that  reason,  take  pleasure  in  discharging  it. 

XLVIII.  Since  the  Lord's  Supper  is  nothing  more 
than  a  religious  commemoration  of  him,  but  more  espe- 
cially of  his  death,  and  the  general  purpose  for  which  he 
died  ;  and  these  particulars  may  be  all  commemorated 
with  a  truly  pious  and  devout  disposition,  without  our 
setting  apart  any  precise  period  of  time  to  prepare  our^ 
selves  for  it ;  such  a  practice  is  no  more  strictly  necessa- 
ry, however  useful  we  may  make  it,  for  the  worthy  par- 
ticipation ofthe  Lord's  Supper,  than  for  the  worthy  per- 
formance of  any  other  act  of  religious  worship  :  and 
habitual  good  intentions  to  regulate  our  conduct  by  the 
precepts  of  the  gospel,  joined  to  the  serious  employment 
of  our  tlioughts,  at  the  time,  upon  the  business  we  are 
about,  will,  in  every  instance,  render  our  attendance  upon 
the  celebration  of  die  Lord's  Supper,  as  well  as  our  per- 
formance of  every  other  act  of  religious  worship,  an  ac- 
ceptable service. 

XLIX.  Since  the  partaking  of  bread  and  wine,  in  re- 
membrance of  our  Lord,  is  an  absolute  christian  duty, 
and  the  serious  ptrfonnance  of  it  has  a  natural  tendency 
to   produce  a  beneficial   effect  upon  our  lives  ;  eveiy 

Cx^ Except  in  the  case  mentioned  in  Prop.  XXXIX. 


design  of  the  hordes  supper.  21 

attendance  upon  il,  ?ally  proceeding  from  a  conviction  of 
its  being  a  duty,  and  accompanied  with  serious  attention 
to  the  particulars  commemorated  in  it,  must  in  all  cases 
whatever  be  as  proper  and  praise-worthy,  as  a  similar 
serious  attendance  upon  any  other  act  of  religious  wor- 
ship, in  the  same  cast;, 

L.  But  since  the  particulars  to  be  peculiarly  commem- 
orated in  this  rite,  are  such  as,  above  all  others,  ought  to 
penetrate  the  heart  with  the  warmest  sense  of  gratitude, 
both  to  our  Creator,  and  Redeemer  ;  and  excite  the  most 
unreserved  acknowledgment  of  ail  our  religious  duties, 
and  the  sincerest  sorrow  for  our  sins  ;  as  well  as  induce 
us  to  form  and  cultivate  such  virtuous  resolutions,  as  may 
produce  that  actual  uprightness  of  conduct,  which  is  the 
great  object  of  the  gospel  dispensation  ;  it  is  more  espe- 
cially our  duty  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  par- 
ticular, though  it  is  likewise  our  duty  when  w^  perform 
any  act  of  religious  worship  in  general,  to  reflect  so  much, 
and  so  seriously,  upon  the  particulars  expressly  com- 
memorated in  it,  and  the  effect  they  ought  to  have  upon 
us,  as  to  make  our  celebration  of  it  actually  conducive 
to  that  virtue,  which  the  gospel  terms  of  salvation  require. 

CONCLUSION. 

IF  the  principles  above  laid  down  are  true,  and  the 
consequences  drawn  from  them  just,  it  follows. 

That  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  rite  of  the  simplest  and 
plainest  nature,  perfectly  intelligible  to  every  capacity. 

That  it  is  nothing  more  than  what  the  w^ords  of  the  in- 
stitution fully  express,  A  religious  commemoration  of  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Clirist,  and  the  general  purpose 
for  which  he  died  ; — which  it  is  the  absolute  duty  of  ev- 
ery one  who  believes  in  Christ  to  celebrate,  because  he 
himself  enjoined  it ; — and  which  requires  nothing  more 
for  its  worthy  celebration,  than  that  intentional  obedience, 
and  serious  disposition  of  mind,  which  deliberate  reflec- 
tion upon  the  particulars  commemorated  in  it  will  natu- 
rally produce. 


22  The  authoriti/j  nature^  ^c\ 

That  as  the  performance  of  it  is  not  attended  with  any- 
other  benefits,  than  those  we  ourselves  take  care  to  make 
it  productive  of,  by  its  rehgious  influence  on  our  princi- 
ples and  practice  ;  so  nothing,  but  our  own  want  of  seri- 
ous and  good  intention  in  performing  it,  can  possibly 
make  it  productive  of  any  danger  or  evil. 

That  as  its  primary  object  is  the  commemoration  of  the 
sufferings  of  our  Lord  in  accomplishing  the  adopted  plan 
of  our  redemption,  we  ought  always  to  be  disposed  to 
celebrate  it,  with  the  same  readiness,  the  same  thankful- 
ness, and  the  same  satisfaction  of  mind,  as  ought  to  ani- 
mate us,  when  we  offer  up  our  thanksgivings  to  God  in 
our  constant  acts  of  worship. 

And,  in  fine,  that  though  it  is  left  to  our  own  discre- 
tion how  often  to  celebrate  it,  nothing  can  so  well  mani- 
fest our  proper  ideas  of,  and  attention  to  it,  as  an  habitual 
performance  of  it,  whenever  an  opportunity  is  pui*posely 
afforded  us  ;  while  an  habitual  omission  of  it,  when  set 
before  us,  must  unavoidably  convict  us,  either  of  igno- 
rance of  its  universal  and  perpetual  oblig^ation  ;  some 
misconception  of  its  nature  and  effects  ;  or  an  inten- 
tional disobedience  to  a  positive  christian  duty. — The  in- 
junction of  our  Lord  is  always  a  reason  for  performing  it ; 
and  if  rightly  understood,  there  cannot  be  any  good  reason 
for  avoiding  it,  consistent  with  those  principles  which 
habitually  influence  the  conduct  of  a  man  of  virtue,  and 
upon  which  whoever  professes  himself  a  Chiistian  would 
be  understood  to  act. 


APPENDIX. 


NUMBER  I. 

X  HE  considerations  which  have  been  already 
alleged,  founded  upon  the  very  words  of  the  institu- 
tion, and  the  particular  circumstances  attending  it,  appear 
to  place  the  universal  and  perpetual  obligation  of  this  rite 
beyond  all  doubt ;  but  if  any  can  still  remain,  the  conduct 
of  St.  Paul,  after  he  was  miraculously  converted  to  the 
faith,  and  completely  instructed  in  every  particulai'  of  the 
will  of  Jesus,  by  immediate  revelation  from  Jesus  him- 
self, and  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;faj  as  well 
as  that  of  all  the  other  apostles,  who  likewise  were 
divinely  inspired  to  enable  them  to  preach  the  gospel,  and 
explain  the  hitentions  of  Jesus,  free  from  all  misUike  ;fbj 
must  effectually  remove  it. 

St.  Paul,  who  was  not  even  a  believer  in  Christ  till 
some  little  time  after  Jesus  was  put  to  death,  was  not  one 
of  those  apostles  to  whom  Jesus  said,  when  he  instituted 
this  right.  This  do  in  re?nembj'ance  of  me.  Had  it  there- 
fore been  the  intention  of  Jesus,  that  none  but  the  apostles 
who  were  present  at  the  time,  and  to  whom  he  spoke, 
should  observe  the  rite  he  then  instituted,  St.  Paul  him- 
self could  not  have  celebrated  it,  when  afterwards  he  be- 
came miraculously  converted,  and  professed  the  faith. 
Or,  if  it  be  allowable  to  suppose,  that  on  account  of  his 
being  converted  in  order  to  his  becoming  a  chosen  apostle, 
it  might  be  revealed  to  him  that  he  was  to  celebrate  it 
himself,  though  he  had  not  been  present  at  the  institution 

CaJ  Acts  ix.  1 — 22  ;  xxii.  14  ;  xx\i.  15 — 18;  Gal.  i.  12  ;  ii.2. 
6 — 9  ;  Ephes.  iii,  3,  4  ;  2  Cor,  xi.  5  ;  xii.  1 1. 

CbJ  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20  ;  John,  xiv.  16,  17,  26  ;  xvi.  12,  13  ; 
Acts,  i.  4,  5  ;  ii.  1 — 4  ;  Mark,  xvi.  20. 


24  APPENDIX.  [no.  t. 

still,  if  this  rite  was  intended  to  be  confined  to  the  apos- 
tles, it  must  at  the  same  time  have  been  revealed  to  him, 
that  though  he  was  to  celebrate  it  himself,  he  was  not  to 
permit  it  to  be  celebrated  by  the  converts  he  should 
make  ;  and  he  must  not  only  have  made  tliis  the  rule  of 
his  practice,  but  he  would  likewise  have  informed  all  the 
disciples  whom  he  converted,  of  the  revelation  he  had 
received,  commanding  him  so  to  do,  to  account  for  this 
extraordinary  particular  of  his  conduct. 

What  then  do  we  find  to  have  been  the  fact  ?  Does 
the  New  Testament  show  us  that  he  acted  in  this  very 
particular  manner?  On  the  contraiy,  it  is  indisputably 
.  certain  from  his  own  writings,  that  he  not  only  permitted, 
.but  authorized,  and  even  required,  all  who  professed  the 
faith,  to  eat  bread  and  drink  wine  in  remembrance  of  Je- 
sus, as  Jesus  had  commanded  the  Apostles  to  do,  the 
night  on  which  he  was  betrayed  ;  and  this  in  obedience 
to  that  original  command  to  them,  revealed  by  Jesus  to 
him  at  his  own  conversion. 

In  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  being  desirous  to 
illustrate  a  point  of  importance  he  w^as  pressing  strongly 
upon  them,  he  appeals  for  this  purpose  to  the  nature  and 
celebration  of  this  very  rite  ;  and  that  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  prove  decisively,  that  it  was  at  that  time  the  estab- 
lished practice  of  all  Christians  to  celebrate  it  ;  and  that 
he  himself  approved  of,  and  authorized  the  practice,  as 
a  standing  institution  of  the  religion  of  Christ. 

1  Cor.  X.  16.     The  cup  of  blessings  which  (saith  St. 
Paul)  WE  BLESS,  is  it  not  the  partaking  of  the  blood  of 
Christ?     The  breads  which  we   break,  Z5  it  ?iot  the 
partaking  of  the  body  of  Christ  ? 

17.  Because  the  bread  is  onCy  ive^  being  many^  are  one 
body  ;  FOPv  we   are   all   partakers  of   the   one 

BREAD. 

This  epistle  was  not  wTitten  for  the  Corinthians  alone, 
though  for  them  more  especially  ;  but  together  Avith  them 
was  expressly  addressed  to  all,  that  in  every  place  called 
upon  the  name  of  the  LordJesus.fcJ     This  appeal  there- 

(c)  1  Cor.i.  2. 


fore  to  the  well-knoxvn  natur€  and  celebration  of  this  rite, 
as  being  universally  practised  and  understood  by  the 
apostles,  and  all,  every  where,  who  professed  the  faith, 
is  an  absolutely  decisive  proof,  not  only  that  St.  Paul  him- 
self and  all  the  apostles  celebrated  it ;  but  that  it  was  the 
established  practice  of  all  Cliristians  to  break  and  eat  bread, 
and  drink  wine,  in  religious  remembrance  of  Jesus,  as  he 
had  enjoined  the  apostles  to  do,  on  the  night  on  which  he 
was  betrayed.  Nay,  the  similar  conclusions  to  which  St. 
Paul  on  this  occasion  appeals,  as  the  obvious  consequen- 
ces of  assisting  at  the  celebration  of  this  rite  with  Chris- 
tians, and  at  the  JcAvish  sacrifices  with  Jews  ;  that  the  one 
implied  the  profession  of  Cliristianity,  and  the  other  of 
Judaism  ;  is  in  fact  a  full  proof,  that  the  eating  bread  and 
drinking  wine  in  religious  remembrance  of  Jesus  was  as 
much  a  known  and  established  rite  of  the  religion  of  Christ, 
as  the  sacrifices  offered  by  the  Jews  were  of  the  law  of 
Moses. 

And  from  the  universal  practice  of  the  right  in  question, 
completely  established  by  this  passage  of  St.  Paul,  it  will 
necessarily  follow,  that  it  could  not  have  been  adopted 
without  authority,  either  by  the  Corinthians,  or  any  other 
christian  church  ;  but  that  it  must  have  been  a  duty  en- 
joined by  St.  Paul,  and  all  the  apostles,  wherever  they 
planted  the  gospel,  as  a  pei'petual  institution  of  the  relig- 
ion of  Christ.  A  practice  of  this,  or  indeed  any  other 
kind,  had  it  been  authorised  by  the  apostles,  could  not 
possibly  have  started  up  in  every  place  at  once,  where 
they  had  established  a  cliristian  congregation.  And  if 
any  one  church  had  attempted  to  introduce  such  a  novelty 
into  the  religion  they  had  been  taught,  it  must  have  been 
utterly  beyond  their  power,  even  long  after  this  period,  to 
have  induced  all  other  churches  to  adopt  it.  St.  Paul  and 
tlie  other  apostles  were  at  this  very  time  preaching  th6 
gosjiel,  and  carefully  superintending  all  the  churches  they 
had  planted  :  and  certainly,  while  this  was  the  case,  it  was 
utterly  impossible  for  any  rite  to  be  introduced,  and  be- 
come established,  even  in  any  one  church,  and  much  more 
so  for  any  to  have  become  the  settled  practice  of  all 
churches,  unless  it  had  been  authorised  and  enjoined  by 


26  APPENDIX.  [no.  I. 

the  apostles  themselves.  The  converts  to  the  faith  in 
Christ  must  have  taken  the  rites  of  their  religion,  as  well 
as  its  doctrines,  from  the  apostles  who  converted  them. 
They  could  not  presume  to  introduce  the  celebration  of 
any  rite,  as  necessarily  belonging  to  it,  which  the  apostles 
had  not  directed  them  to  celebrate ;  nor  could  the  apos- 
tles have  peiTnitted  them  to  continue  the  celebration  of 
any  such  right,  if  they  had ;  and  much  less  could  they 
have  sanctified  any  such  rite,  by  even  joining  in  the  cele- 
bration of  it  themselves,  and  directing  it  to  be  universally 
practised ;  since  for  them  to  have  authorised  the  univer- 
sal celebration  of  any  rite,  as  an  original  institution  of  the 
religion  of  Clirist,  ordained  by  a  command  from  him, 
which  Jesus  had  neither  instituted  himself,  nor  by  rcA^ela- 
tion  directed  them  to  enjoin,  for  universal  celebration, 
would  have  been  coiTupting  that  religion,  which  tliey  were 
puq^osely  selected  to  preach,  and  by  inspiration  enabled 
to  preach  free  from  all  corruption  or  mistake ;  and  there- 
fore impossible. 

The  universal  established  practice,  therefore,  of  eatmg 
bread  and  drinking  wine  in  religious  commemoration  of 
Jesus,  in  the  time  of  die  apostles  themselves,  which, 
from  St.  Paul's  appeal  to  it,  just  considered,  cannot  be 
doubted,  is  a  decisive  proof,  that  this  rite  could  not  have 
been  an  unauthorised  practice,  improper!}^  introduced, 
either  by  the  Corinthians,  or  any  other  of  the  converts  to 
Christianity  ;  but  that  it  must  have  been  every  where  en- 
joined from  the  first  by  nil  tloe  apostles,  as  well  as  St. 
Paul,  as  having  been  instituted  by  Jesus  in  his  command 
to  them  on  the  night  on  which  he  was  betrayed.  And 
this  is  still  further  evident,  from  the  manner  in  which  St. 
Paul  writes  to  the  Corinthians  in  the  same  episde,  to  cor- 
rect some  great  improprieties,  which  they  had  been  guilty 
of,  when  met  together  to  celebrate  this  rite. 

To  make  diem  duly  sensible  of  the  great  impropriety 
of  their  conduct  in  this  particular,  and  of  the  serious  be- 
haviour which  ought  to  accompany  this  rite,  he  relates  to 
them  the  mtmner  in  which  Jesus  directed  the  apostles  to 
celebrate  it,  the  night  on  which  he  was  betrayed  ;fdj — 

(djl  Cor.  xi.  23—25. 


NO.  I.]  APPENDIX.  27 

informs  them,  that  the  histor}'^  of  its  institution  had  been 
revealed  immediately  to  himself  from  the  Lord  ;(^ej — 
reminds  them,  that  he  had  imparted  all  the  particulars  of 
it  to  them,  when  he  first  converted  them  to  the  faith  ;^fj 
— explains  to  them,  from  himself,  the  religious  purpose 
which  the  celebration  of  this  rite  was  calculated  to  answer, 
that  of  shewing  the  JLorcVs  death  till  he  should  come  ;fgj 
— shews  them  the  nature  of  their  offence,  in  attending  at 
it  without  serious  reflection  upon  its  particular  nature  and 
design  ',fhj — assures  them  that  sickness,  and  even  death, 
had  been  inflicted  on  some  of  them,  as  a  temporal  pun- 
ishment for  their  culpable  behaviour  in  this  instance  ;  fij 
— and,  after  exhorting  them  to  that  serious  disposition, 
which  a  commemoration  of  our  Lord's  death  must  neces- 
sarily require,  he  directs  them  to  continue  the  prac- 
tice. CkJ. 

Was  it  then  possible  for  St.  Paul  to  write  in  this  man- 
ner to  those  whom  he  had  converted  to  the  faith,  in  rela- 
tion to  any  rite  which  had  been  properly  introduced  by 
the  converts  themselves  ;  or  any  but  what  he,  and  all  the 
apostles,  had  originally  enjoined  the  practice  of,  as  a 
standing  institution  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  ?  Unless  the 
original  injunction  of  Jesus  to  the  apostles  had  been  in- 
tended by  him  as  a  direction  for  the  practice  of  all  who 
should  ever  profess  the  christian  faith,  as  well  as  for  that 
of  the  apostles  themselves  ;  with  wliat  truth  or  propriety 
could  St.  Paul  here  press  this  original  command  upon  the 
Corinthians,  and  all  other  Chi'istians,  without  alledging  any 
other  to  explain  or  enforce  it,  as  a  proof  of  its  being  their 
duty,  as  Christians,  to  celebrate  the  rite  which  that  injunc- 
tion ordained  ? 

If  Jesus  had  intended  to  signify  by  that  command,  that 
this  right  should  be  celebrated  by  the  apostles,  but  by 
the  apostles  alone,  it  would  have  been  counteracting  his 
intentions,  and  therefore  corrupting  his  religion,  not  only 
to  enjoin,  but  even  to  allow  the  celebration  of  it  to  Chris- 
tians at  large.     And  if,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  we  for 

(e)\h\ei.  ver.  23.         f/J  Ibid.  ver.   23.        (^^-J  Ibid.  ver.  26. 
(h)  Ibid.  V.  27—29.      (i)  Cor.  xi.  v.  30.      (k)lh\^,  ver.  33, 34, 


^  APPENDIX.  [no.  i,, 

a  moitient  suppose  it  possible,  for  in  no  otlier  light  can 
the  supposition  be  admitted,  tliat  Jesus  might  mean  to 
enjoin  the  celebration  of  it,  as  a  duty,  for  none  but  the 
apostles  ;  but  at  tlie  same  time  to  permit  the  practice  of 
it  to  all  Christians,  as  a  voluntary  act  ;  even  in  this  case 
the  apostles  could  not  have  recommended,  or  even  per- 
mitted the  celebration  of  it  to  their  disciples,  without  aX 
the  same  time  explicitly  informing  them,  that,  as  a  duty, 
this  practice  was  enjoined  by  Jesus  for  the  apostles 
alone  ;  and  that  with  respect  to  all  others,  therefore,  they 
only  recommended  it  as  a  voluntary  practice  ;  because 
without  this  explanation,  their  apostolical  authority  would 
certainly  have  caused  it  to  be  regarded  as  a  general  duty, 
and  thus  have  cprrijpted  the  religion  they  were  apix)inted 
to  preach. 

Since  therefore  it  is  certain,  that  the  apostles,  wlx)  were 
by  inspiration  informed  of  the  true  intention  of  Jesus  in 
all  his  commands,  and  especially  in  one  of  so  remarkable 
a  nature  as  that  under  consideration,  and  incapable  erf 
corrupting  liis  religion,  in  any  particular  ;  since  they  not 
only  celebrated  this  rite  themselves,  but  enjoined  all 
whom  they  converted  to  the  faith  to  celebrate  it  likewise  ; 
and  this  not  as  a  voluntaiy  performance,  but  as  an  act  of 
necessary  obedience  to  the  injunction  of  Jesus  to  them- 
selves, the  night  on  which  he  was  betrayed  ;  it  must  be 
granted,  that  this  rite  was  not  instituted  by  Jesus  for  the 
observation  of  the  apostles  alone,  though  they  were  the 
only  persons  present  at  the  institution  ;  but  was  enjoin- 
ed by  our  Lord  for  a  standing  rite  of  his  religion,  to  be 
celebrated  by  all,  who  should  ever  profess  themselves 
believers  in  him.f  Ij 

This  argument,  if  I  am  not  deceived,  is  conclusive  : 
but  one  particular  of  what  St.  Paul  has  said,  not  yet  at- 
tended to,  will  supply  us  with  anotlier  argument  in  proof 
of  the  same  point.  In  explaining  tlie  use  of  this  rite  he 
says ;  as  often  as  y€  eat  this  breads  and  drink  this  cup^  ye 
do  sftew  the  Lord^s  death  till  he  come.(m)     The  earning 

flJSec  the  note  on  tiis  page  at  the  end  of  the  Appendix. 
frnjl  CW.  Ki.  36. 


no.  I.]  APPENDIX.  29 

of  the  Lord  m  different  passages  denotes  twt)  different 
events ;  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  together  with  the 
Jewish  pohty  ;  CnJ  and  the  last  judgment.  To  J  Had  St. 
Paul  therefore  here  meant,  that  this  right  was  to  be  cele- 
brated for  the  purpose  of  commemorating  the  death  of 
Jesus,  till  the  first  of  these  events,  the  destruction  of  Jeru^ 
salem,  but  no  longer  ;  he  must  of  necessity  have  signifi- 
ed, that  it  was  in  this  sense  he  here  used  the  expression, 
since  otherwise  they  would  certainly  have  misunderstood 
him :  for  if  the  rite  concerned  continued  to  be  celebrated* 
as  an  ordinance  of  the  gospel,  for  thirty  or  forty  years, 
vidthout  any  signification  of  its  being  ever  to  be  laid  aside, 
nothing  certainly  could  induce  any  one  to  believe,  tliat  it 
was  then  to  cease,  and  be  no  longer  observed.  Had  this 
been  the  design  therefore,  St.  Paul  could  not  have  written, 
diat  by  celebrating  this  rite  they  showed  the  Lord's  death 
till  he  should  come,  without  at  the  same  time  pointing  out 
WHICH  coming  oi  the  Lord  he  meant.  Nay,  had  this 
been  the  design,  either  Jesus  himself  at  the  time  of  insti- 
tuting the  rite,  or  at  least  the  apostles  when  they  came 
to  preach  the  gospel  and  enjoin  the  celebration  of  it,  must 
carefully  liave  explained  it ;  and  we  should  have  found 
each  of  the  evangelists,  who  has  recorded  the  manner  of 
its  institution,  subjoining  to  it  some  intimation  to  be  ob- 
served, and  at  the  end  of  which  it  was  to  be  abolished  ; 
or  at  least  acquainting  us  tliat  it  was  not  intended  to  be 
perpetual.  But  the  fact  is,  that  neither  Jesus,  nor  any  one 
of  the  evangelists,  has  given  us  the  least  hint  of  any  such 
intended  limitation  ;  and  the  total  silence  of  John  in  par- 
ticular, with  regard  to  this  rite,  supplies  us  with  an  abso- 
lute proof,  that  it  was  instituted  on  purpose  to  be  perpet- 
ual. 

John  wrote  his  gospel,  as  is  abundantly  manifest  from 
its  contents,  after  having  perused  those  of  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Luke  ;  on  purpose  to  record  many  particulars  of  the 

CnjK?,  in  Matt.  xxiv.  30.  Luke  xviii.  8.  xxi.  27.  John  xxi. 
22.  23.     Heb.  x.  37. 

foJAs  in  John  xiv.  3.  Acts  i.  ii.  1  Cor.  iv.  5.  2  Thess.  i.  10. 
Rev.  ii.  25.  iii.  11.  xxii.  7.  20.  and,  as  will  be  proved,  in  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration. 


Ito  APPENDIX.  [no.  I. 

words  and  actions  of  Jesus,  which  they  had  not  mention- 
ed. Had  the  Lord's  Supper  therefore  been  intended  by- 
Jesus  for  only  a  temporary  institution  ;  and  had  it  been 
possible  in  that  case,  (though  it  certainly  was  not,)  for 
the  other  three  evangelists  to  have  recorded  as  they  have 
done,  the  manner  of  its  being  appointed,  without  adding 
the  least  hint  of  its  being  intended  to  be  observed  for  a 
certain  period  only  ;  it  is  utterly  inconceivable,  that  John 
could  in  that  case  have  omitted  making  mention  of  so 
very  singular  a  circumstance,  which  would  have  been  ab- 
solutely necessary  to  be  made  known. 

Besides,  John  lived  till  after  Jerusalem  was  actually  de- 
stroyed. If  therefore  the  right  in  question  had  been  in- 
stituted by  Jesus,  in  order  to  its  being  celebrated  till  that 
event  should  have  taken  place,  but  then  to  be  abolished  ; 
and  if  it  had  even  been  possible  for  no  mention  of  this 
design  to  have  been  made,  till  that  time  had  actually  arriv- 
ed ;  no  sooner  could  Jerusalem  have  been  destroyed, 
than  John  must  have  declared,  that  the  observation  of  this 
rite  was  immediately  to  cease  ;  and  have  issued  out  his 
apostolical  injunctions  to  all  Christians  to  discontinue  it  ; 
acquainting  them,  at  the  same  time,  with  those  revealed 
directions  from  the  Lord,  in  obedience  to  which  he  did 
so.  And  it  will  readily  be  allowed,  that  the  liistory  of  so 
very  singular  an  abolition  of  a  rite,  ordained  in  so  particular 
a  manner  by  Jesus  himself,  must  as  certainly  ha.ve  come 
down  to  us,  as  any  particulars  whatever  relating  to  Jesus, 
or  his  gospel. 


NO.  II.J  APPENDIX.  5i 

NUMBER  ILfdJ 

TO  determine  whether  the  particular  occasion, 
on  which  the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted,  will  warrant 
us  to  conclude,  that  there  are  any  other  benefits  or  evils 
attending  the  performiince  or  omission  of  it,  than  such  as 
may  be  deduced  from  the  words  and  actions  of  our  Lord  in 
the  institution  itself,  we  must  consider  in  the  first  place, 
what  resemblance  our  Lord  himself  intended  to  give  it  to 
tlie  Jewish  Paschal  Supper ;  and  then  what  consequences 
may  be  justly  deduced  from  that  designed  resemblance. 

I.  The  form  of  the  institution,  and  general  nature  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  have  a  striking  resemblance  to  those 
of  the  Passo\'er. — As  at  the  institution  of  the  Passover  it 
was  said,  It  is  the  Lord^s  Passover  ;CbJ  so  our  Lord,  in 
instituting  his  o^vn  rite,  said,  This  is  my  body  ;  this  is  my 
blood  of  the  New  Covenant ;  or,  this  is  the  New  Covenant 
in  my  blood. — As  at  the  institution  of  the  Passover  it  was 
said,  This  day  shall  be  unto  you  for  a  memorial^(c)  &c.  so 
our  Lord  said,  This  do  in  remembrance  of  or,  for  a  me- 
morial  of  me^  Sec. — As  the  Paschal  Supper  was  to  be  a 
memorial  of  the  deliverance  of  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt, 
and  of  the  means  by  which  it  was  acomplished  \(d)  so 
the  Lord's  Supper  was  to  be  a  memorial  of  the  re- 
demption of  mankind,  and  the  means  by  which  that  was 
accomplished. /^<?>' — So  far  the  form  of  the  institution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  and  its  general  nature  as  a  memorial, 
bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  the  form  of  Uie  institution, 
and  general  nature  of  the  Paschal  Supper,  as  a  memo- 
rial,  (f) 

n.  The  Pascal  Supper  being  an  institution  of  the  law 
delivered  by  Moses,  its  true  nature  and  effects,  as  a'  part 
ofthe  Jewish  law,  must  be  learnt  from  what  is  declared 
concerning  it  in  the  book  of  Moses. 

(a)  See  Prop.  XIX,  page  9. 

f/ijExod.  xii.  11,27. 

(cj  Exod.  xii.   14.     (d)  Exod.  xii.  14,  17,  24,  37. 

(e)  Matt.xxvi.  26,  &c.     1  Cor.  xi.  23.  &c. 

(f)  See  the  note  on  this  page  at  the  end  ofthe  Appendix. 


32  APPENDIX.  [no.  II. 

In  the  history  of  the  institution  of  the  Paschal  Supper, 
after  reciting  the  directions  for  the  particular  manner  in 
which  the  rig^it  itself  was  to  be  celebrated,  (^j^^  it  is  im- 
mediately added,  ^/ly' — "  And  this  day  shall  be  unto  you 
"  for  a  memorial  ;  and  you  shall  keep  it  a  feast  unto  the 
"  Lord  throughout  your  generaticais,  and  you  shall  keepi 
"  it  a  feast  by  an  ordinance  forever." — And  it  is  further 
said, — "  And  ye  shall  observe  the  feast  of  unleavened 
"  bread  ;  for  in  this  self-same  day  have  I  brought  your 
"  armies  out  of  Egypt ;  therefore  shall  ye  observe  this 
**  day  in  your  generations  by  im  ordinance  for  ever.'Yz^ 
■—Agreeably  to  which,  when  Moses  had  commanded  the 
people  to  kill  the  Passover,  and  given  them  particular  di- 
rections for  the  manner  in  which  they  were  to  kill  it,  he 
added, — "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  ye  be  come  to 
f*  the  land  whicli  the  Lord  will  give  you,  according  as  he 
*'  hath  promised,  that  ye  shall  keep  this  service.     And  it 
**  shall  come  to  pass,  when  your  children  shall  say  unto 
"  you,  What  mean  you  by  this  service  ?  that  ye  shall  say, 
*'  It  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  Loi'd's  Passover,  who  passed 
"  over  the  liouses  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt, 
**  when  he  smote  the  Egyptians,  and  delivered  our  hous- 
**  es.'Y^y — Again,  "  Tiwu  slialt  keep  the  feast  ofunleav- 
"  ened  bread  ;  thou  shalt  cat  unleavened  bread  seven 
**  days,  as  I  commanded  thee  in  the  time  appointed  of  tlie 
^*  month  of  Abib  ;  for  in  it  thou  camest  out  from  Egypt." 
flj — And  thus  again  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy, /^w^ 
— "  Observe  the  month  Abib,  and  keep  the  Passover  un- 
^*  to  the  Loi'd  thy  Grod  ;  for  in  the  month  Abib  the  Lord 
"  thy  God  brought  thee  forth  out  of  Egypt  by  night. — 
"  Thou  shalt  eat  no  leavened  bread  with  it  :  seven  days 
"  shalt  thou  eat  unleavened  bread  therewith,  even  the 
**  bread  of  affliction  ;  for  thou  camest  forth  out  of  the 
"  land  of  Egypt  in  haste ;  that  thou  mayest  remember 
"  the  day  when  thou  camest  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt 
"  all  the  days  of  thy  life." — And  again, /'?zy'  "  Thou  shalt 

(gj  Exod.'Kii:  5-L18.     ('AyiYAi.  \er.  14.     fij  I^d.  ver.  17. 
fkj  Exod.  xii.  25 — 27.  CO  I^id.  XKiiJ.  15. 

("mj  Ch.  yyi.  1,3.  fnj  IMd.  vet.  4. 


no,  li.^  APPtNlDlX*  33 

"  sacfifice  the  Passover  at  even,  at  the  going  down  of  the 
"  sun,  at  the  season  that  thou  earnest  forth  out  of  Egypt.'* 
■i— And  thus  We  find  Moses  ordaining  a  second  time,  veiy 
soon  after  tlie  injjtitutioh  of  this  rite,—"  And  thou  shalt 
"  shew  thy  son  in  that  day,"  (when  they  should  celebratte 
the  Passover  in  the  promised  land  ;)  "  saying,  this  is  done 
"  because  of  that  which  the  Lord  did  unto  me,  when  I 
*'  came  forth  out  of  Egypt.  And  it  shall  be  for  a  sign 
"  unto  thee  upon  thine  hand,  and  for  a  memorial  between 
*'  thine  eyes,  that  the  Lord's  law  may  be  in  thy  mouth  ; 
"  for  with  a  strong  hand  hath  the  Lord  brought  thee  out 
"  of  Egypt.  Thou  shalt  therefore  keep  this  ordinance  in 
*'  hi^  season  from  year  to  year."foJ 

III  From  all  these  repeated  accounts  of  the  institution 
of  the  Passover,  and  the  end  for  which  it  was  instituted, 
delivered  to  the  Jewish  nation  by  Moses  himself,  the  in- 
stitutor  of  the  rite,  and  the  only  person  authorised  to  de- 
clare the  nature  and  design  of  the  institution  ;  it  indisput- 
ably appears, 

1st,  That  the  Paschal  Supper  was  expressly  instituted 
for  a  standing  memorial  of  the  miraculous  deliverance  of 
the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt ;  purposely  intended  to  make 
fhem  tlie  more  mindful  of  that  law  of  the  Lord  which 
Moses  soon  after  delivered  to  them. 

2dly,  That  this  was  the  only  desigrt  of  the  institution 
of  which  Moses  made  any  mention,  and  consequently  its 
only  design  as  a  part  of  the  Jewish  law,  and  the  only  one 
of  which  the  Jews  themselves  could  have  any  conception. 

3dly,  That  there  were  not  any  special  promises  annex- 
ed to  the  celebration  of  this  rite,  or  any  blessings  to  be 
Expected  from  it,  but  those  promised  to  obedience  to  all 
the  positive  injunctions  in  general  of  the  law  of  Moses. 
And  therefore, 

4thly,  That  the  Paschal'  Supper  was  precisely  A  re- 
ligious memorial  of  the  deliverance  of  the  Israelites  out  of 
Egypt,  and  the  miraculous  manner  in  which  it  was  accom- 
plished ; — and  nothing  more  ; — and  had  no  other  benefits 
attending  the  celebration  of  iti,  than  those  which  attended 

roj  Exod.  xiii.  8—10. 

E 


34  APPENDIX.  [nO.I1. 

the  celebration  of  all  the  other  positive  rites  in  general  of 
the  Jewish  law  ;  viz.  the  blessings  there  promised  to  all 
intentional  obedience  to  God,  and  the  natural  good  effects 
of  the  performance  of  the  rite  itself;  which  in  this  instance 
especially  had  a  manifest  tendency  to  excite  and  improve 
every  sentiment  of  gratitude  to  God,  and  obedience  to  all 
his  commands  contained  in  the  law  of  Moses. 

IV.  As  the  celebration  of  the  Paschal  Supper  had  no 
peculiar  blessings  annexed  to  it,  so  neither  was  there  any 
punishment  denounced  for  the  omission  of  it,  but  what 
was  equally  tlircatened  for  the  omission,  or  transgression^ 
of  any  other  of  the  great  positive  rites  of  tlie  Jewish  law.  Cp) 
V.  Since  the  Paschal  Supper  was  to  the  Jews  nothing 
more  than  a  religious  memorial  positively  enjoined  by 
their  law,  without  any  peculiar  benefits  annexed  to  the 
celebration,  or  any  peculiar  punishment  to  the  omission 
of  it,  and  in  reality  not  productive  of  either  ; — no  resem- 
blance which  our  Lord  might  design  the  rite  he  himself 
instituted  should  bear  to  the  Paschal  supper,  can  possibly 
make  the  Lord's  Supper,  any  thing  more  than  A  relig- 
ious memorial  positively  enjoined  in  the  law  of  Clirist ; — 
Or  be  the  cause  of  aimexing  to  the  celebration  of  it  any 
peculiar  benefits  whatever  ;  or  to  the  omission  of  it  any 
peculiar  evils  whatever  ; — Or  indeed  any  benefits,  or 
evils,  but  those  which  are  universally  annexed  to  obedi- 
ence, and  denounced  against  disobedience,  to  the  com- 
mands of  our  Lord,  by  the  general  principles  and  terms 
of  the  christian  dispensation  ;  which  have  been  explained 
already  in  Propositions  XIIL  and  XIV. 

(^/ij  For  the  proof  of  this  compare  Exod.  xii.  15,  19.  with  Exod. 
XXX.  S3,  xxxi.  14.  Levit.  vii.  20,  2  1,  25,  27.  xvii.  4,  9.  xxiii.  29. 
Numb.  XV.  32—36.  xix.  13.  The  general  reason  for  denouncing 
one  uniform  punishment  against  all  these  direct  transgressions  of 
the  plain  and  positive  injunctions  of  the  law,  is  given  us  in  Numb. 
XV.  30,  31.  "  The  soul  that  doth  ought  presumptuously,  whether 
"  he  be  born  in  the  land  or  a  stranger,  the  same  reproveth  the  Lord ; 
"  and  that  soul  shall  be  cut  oft"  from  among  his  people.  Because 
"  he  hath  despised  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  hath  broken  his  com- 
"  mandment,  that  soul  shall  be  utterly  cut  off ;  his  iniquity  shall 
*'  be  upon  him." 


NO.  III.J  APPENDIX.  35 

NUMBER  111.  fa  J 

THE  Christians  at  Corinth  having  allowed  them- 
selves in  the  practice  of  partaking  of  the  religious  feasts 
in  the  heathen  temples,  upon  the  flesh  of  those  victims 
which  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice  to  their  idols  ;  and 
having,  as  it  should  seem  from  1  Cor.  ch.  viii.  ver.  1  con- 
tended for  the  harmlessness  of  the  practice,  from  their 
full  conviction  of  the  folly  of  all  idol  worship  ;  St.  Paul 
sets  himself  to  convince  them  of  its  impropriety,  and  in 
the  end  absolutely  forbids  it,  as  unlawful  in  any  one  who 
embraced  the  faith  in  Christ. 

In  1  Cor.  ch.  viii.  he  urges,  that  though  in  general 
they  did  this  without  any  religious  regard  to  the  heathen 
idols  ;  yet  there  were  some  among  them  not  so  free  from 
all  tendency  to  idolatry,  who  would  be  induced  by  their 
example  to  do  the  same  with  a  real  religious  regard  to  the 
heathen  idols  ;  and  thus  be  seduced  into  a  degree  of  sin- 
ful idolatry. — In  ch.  ix.  he  further  presses  upon  them  the 
duty  of  abstaining  from  this  practice,  from  a  benevolent 
regard  to  the  safety  of  their  weaker  brethren  ;  by  enu- 
merating several  particulars,  in  which  he  himself  had  al- 
ways abstained  from  Avhat  he  had  a  full  right  to  have 
done,  merely  with  a  view  to  promote  the  good  of  those 
who  had  embraced  the  christian  faith. — 'In  ch.  x.  he  pro- 
ceeds to  dissuade  them  from  this  practice,  as  dangerous 
even  with  respect  to  themselves,  notwithstanding  they 
thought  themselves  secure  from  receiving  any  prejudice 
from  it ;  by  reminding  them,  from  ver.  1  to  14,  of  sev- 
eral instances  in  which  their  forefathers  the  Israelites, 
notwithstanding  the  miracles  which  they  were  sensible 
had  accompanied  their  deliverance  from  Egypt,  drew  up- 
on themselves  the  displeasure  of  God,  not  only  by  vari- 
ous acts  of  disobedience,  but  even  by  acts  of  idolatry  it- 
self ;  and  those  of  a  similar  nature  to  the  idol  feasts^, 
which  the  Corinthians  had  allowed  themselves  to  frequent. 
In     conclusion,     the  Apostle     finishes  his   argument?^ 

C^J  See  Prop.  XXIV,  Page  12, 


9#  APPENDIX.  [no.  III. 

against  the  practice  in  question,  from  rtr.  15  to  22,  by 
shewing,  from  one  obvious  consequence  of  assisting,  as 
well  at  the  Jewish  religious  Feasts,  as  at  the  Christian 
Eucharist,  that  partaking  of  the  idol  feasts  in  the  heath- 
en temples,  was  an  evident  overt  act  of  idolatry  ;  and 
therefore  absolutely  unlawful  in  all  who  embraced  tjip 
christian  faith. 

The  passage  itself,  in  which  he  makes  this  mention  of  the 
cliristian  Eucharist,  and  ^^'hich  is  here  necessary  to  be 
considered  ;  in  order  to  know,  whether  it  may  afford  us 
any  insight  into  the  nature  of  this  rite,  in  addition  to  what 
has  been  deduced  from  the  institution  itself;  together 
with  such  directions  as  St.  Paul  thought  fit  to  give  the  Co- 
rinthians, for  regulating  their  conduct  with  respect  to  eat- 
ing meat,  which  had  been  oftbred  in  sacrifice  to  idols,  even 
in  the  houses  of  the  heathens,  is  as  follows. 

1st  Epist.  Coi\  ch.  X.  ver.  14,  to  ch.  xi.  ver  1. 
14    Wherefore,  my  dearly  beloved,  flee  from  idolatry, 

15.  I  speak  as  to  wise  men  ;  judge  ye  what  I  say. 

16.  The  cup  of  blessing,  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  comrnun- 
ion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread,  which  we  break,  is  it  not 
the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ? 

17.  For  we,  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body  ;  for  we 
are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread. 

18.  Behold  Israel  after  the  flesh  ;  are  not  they,  which  eat  of  the 
sacrifice,  partakers  of  the  altar  ? 

19.  What  say  I  then  ?  That  the  idol  is  any  thing  ;  or  that,  which 
is  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols,  is  any  thing  ? 

20.  But  /  say  that  the  things,  which  the  Gentiles  sacrifice,  they 
sacrifice  to  devils,  and  not  to  God  :  and  I  would  not  that  ye  should 
have  fellowship  with  devils. 

21.  Ye  cannot  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord  and  the  cup  of  devils  : 
ye  canpot  be  partakers  of  the  Lord's  table  and  the  table  of  devils. 

22.  Do  we  provoke  the  Lord  to  jealousy?  Are  we  stronger 
than  he  ? 

23.  All  things  are  lawful  for  me,  but  all  things  are  not  expedi- 
ent :  all  things  are  lawful  for  me,  but  all  things  edify  not. 

24.  Let  no  man  seek  his  own,  but  every  man  another's  wealth. 
2'5.  Whatsoever  is  sold  in  the  shambles,  that  eat;    asking  no 

questions  for  conscience  sake. 

26.  For  the  earth  is  the  Lord's,  and  the  fulness  thereof. 

27.  If  any  of  them  that  believe  not  bid  you  to  feast,  and  ye  be 
disposed  to  go  ;  whatsoever  is  set  before  you  eat ;  asking  no  ques-* 
tion  for  conscience  sake. 


1^0.  III.]  APPENDIX-  3? 

38.  But  if  and  man  say  unto  you,  This  is  offered  in  sacrifice  tp 
idols,  eat  not  ;  for  his  sake  that  shewed  it,  and  for  conscience  sake ,: 
TFor  the  earth  is  the  Lord's  and  the  fulness  thereof.] 

29.  Conscience,  I  say,  not  thine  own,  but  of  the  other's :  for  why 
is  my  liberty  judored  of  another  man's  conscience  ? 

30.  For  if  I  by  grace  be  a  partaker  ;  why  am  I  evil  spoken  q^ 
for  that,  for  which  1  give  thanks  ? 

3 1 .  Whether  therefore  ye  eat,  or  drink,  or  whatever  ye  do,  do 
all  to  the  glory  of  God. 

32.  Give  none  offence,  neither  to  the  Jews,  nor  to  the  Gentiles, 
nor  to  the  church  of  God. 

33.  Even  as  I  please  all  men  in  all  things,  not  seeking  mine  own 
profit,  but  the  firofit  of  many,  that  they  may  be  saved. 

Ch.  xi.  1 .  Be  ye  followers  of  me,  even  as  I  also  am  of  Christ. 

We  have  here  before  us  St.  Paul's  whole  reasoning  in 
this  passage  concernmg  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  to  de- 
termine the  true  meaning  of  what  he  has  here  said  relatT 
ing  to  this  rite,  it  is  absolutely  necessaiy,  in  the  first  place, 
to  fix  the  sense  of  some  words  in  the  original,  which  are 
of  importance  to  it,  and  whose  meaning  has  been  made 
mattter  of  doubt ;  by  inquiring  into  the  sense,  in  which 
the  same  words  are  used  by  St.  Paul  on  other  occasions, 
as  well  as  by  the  apostles  throughout  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

Remark  1.  In  ver.  15,  the  clause  translated — Ispesik 
as  to  wise  men — ^is  in  the  original — ug  (p§ovi(Juoig  "Kzyu  5 
and  St,  Paul  always  uses  the  word  (pgovi^og  for  a  per- 
son  of  sense,  judgment,  or  discretion  :  when  he  speaks 
of  a  person  of  scientific  knowledge,  he  uses  the  word 
o'o(pog. 

In  this  manner  (p^ovtfji^os  is  used  by  St.  Paul  in  1  Cor. 
iv.  10  ;  2  Cor  xi.  19  ;  Ephes.  i.  8.  And  so  by  Mat- 
thew  vii.  24  ;  x.  16 ;  xxv.  2,  4,  8,  9.  And  Luke  ii.  42  j 
xvi.  8. 

St.  Paul  uses  (ro(pog  for  a  person  of  scientific  knowledge, 
Rom.  i.  14,  22;  1  Cor.  i.  17,  19,  20,  21,  22,  26,  27  ; 
ii.  1,  5,  6  ;  iii,  10,  18,  19  ;  2  Cor.  i.  12.  And  sq  Matt. 
xi.  25  ;  xii.  42  ;  Luke,  x.  2i  ;  Acts,  vii.  22. 

He  once  uses  ^m€X\- — &o0og — in  the  sense  of,  prudent, 
sensible,  discreet.     Ephes.  v.  15. 

This  clause  therefore  in  ^^er.  15.  ou^^l^t  to  be  translat- 


f8  APPENDIX,  [no.  III. 

ed, — /  address  myself  to  you  as  to  as  to  men  of  sense  and 
discretion  ;  judge  ijourselves  of  what  I  say. 

Remark  2.  The  next  words  in  the  original  whose 
meaning  has  been  made  matter  of  dispute,  and  upon  the 
supposed  meaning  of  which,  all  the  notions,  wliich  have 
ever  been  embraced,  of  something  mysterious  in  the  na- 
ture of  the  Lord's  Supper,  have  been  chiefly,  if  not  entire- 
ly founded ;  are—r-Ko/vwv/a  in  ver.  16;  and  Koivwvoj  in 
ver.  18  and  20  ;  and  fXfTe%e/v  in  ver.  17,  21.  and  30. 

1st,  Signifies  merely  the  connection,  participation,  part- 
nership, agreement,  &c.,  of  one  person  or  thing  with,  in, 
or  of,  another  person  or  thing ;  without  any  reference 
whatever  to  ih&  joint  participation,  &c.  of  more  tlian  one 
in  the  same  thing. 

As  2  Cor.  vi.  14 ;  viii.  23 ;  Ephes.  iii.  9 ;  Philipp.  ii.  1 ; 
iii.lO;  lTim.v.22;  Phil.l7;  and  1  Pet. v.  1;  2Joh.ll. 
And  this  is  exactly  the  manner,  in  which  it  is  used  in  the 
very  passage  in  question,  1  Cor.  x.  16. 

2dly,  Where  several  persons  or  things  are  spoken  of 
as  partaking  of  any  thing,  this  word  itself  does  express 
collectively  the  joint  participation  of  all ;  but  simply  the 
distinct  participation  of  each  :  That  is,  in  other  words,  it 
expresses  the  general  idea  of  participation,  &c.  and  notli- 
ing  more. 

As  Rom.  XV.  27;  1  Cor.  i.  9 ;  2  Cor.  i.  7  ;  xiii.  13  ; 
Gal.  ii.  9  ;  Heb.  ii.  14 ;  x.  33  ;  1  Pet.  iv.  13  ;  2  Pet.  i.  4 ; 
1  John  i.  3,  6,  7  ;  Matt,  xxiii.  30 ;  Luke  v.  10.  And  so 
it  is  used  likewise  in  the  passage  before  us,  1  Cor.  x.  18, 
20. 

3dly,  When  St.  Paul  would  express,  in  this  word  it- 
self, the  idea  of  the^omf  partaking,  8>cc.  of  more  than  one 
in  any  person  or  thing,  he  distinguishes  his  meaning  by 
pernxing  to  it  the  particle — cuv. 

As  Rom.  xi.  17  ;  1  Cor.ix.23  ;  Ephes.  v.  11  ;  Philipp, 
i.  7  ;  iv.  14.     And  so  John,  Rev.  i.  9  ;  xviii.  A-.fbJ 

(b)  The  word  xaamM  sometimes  signifies  benevolent  assistance, 
or  charitable  contribuiion  towards  those,  who  stand  in  need  of  it. 
As  Rom.  xii.  13  ;  xv.  26  :    2  Cor.  viii.  4 ;  ix.  1,  13 ;    Gal.  vi.  6  5 


N*0.  III.]  APPENDIX.  39 

jX{rg;^gii'— ja/€ro;^oj— ia6ro;^/jj— 

1st,  Signilies  merely  one  person's  or  thing's  partaking 
of,  agreeing  with,  &:c.  another  person  or  thing ;  without 
any  reference  whatever  to  the  jom?  partaking,  &c.  of  more 
than  one  in  the  same  thing. 

As  1.  Cor.  ix.  10  ;  x.  30;  2  Cor.  vi.  14;  Heb.  ii.  14? 
V.  13 ;  vii.  13. 

2dly,  When  several  persons  or  things  ai'e  spoken  of, 
as  partaking,  &c.  of  any  thing,  this  word  itself  does  not 
express  collectively  the  joint  partaking,  of  all,  but  simply 
the  disti?ict  partakmg,  agreement,  &c.  of  each,  with  the 
thing  spoken  of :  that  is,  it  signifies  the  general  idea  of 
participation,  &c.  and  nothing  more. 

As  1  Cor.  ix.  12  ;  Heb.  iii.  1,  14  ;  vi.  4 ;  xii.  8.  And 
in  the  passage  before  us,  1  Cor.  x.  17,  21. 

3dly,  When  St.  Paul  would  express,  in  this  word  itself, 
the  idea  oitht  joint  partaking,  joint  agreeing,  &c.  of  sev- 
eral together  in  any  person  or  thing,  he  distinguishes  his 
meaning  by  prefixing  to  it  the  particle — truv. 

As  Ephes.  iii.  6  ;  v.  7. 

4thly,  The  words  (/.stejcsiv  and  noivuveiv,  /xeTo;co?  and 
HOivcovogy  are  used  synonimously,  as  well  in  the  internal  or 
spiritual,  as  the  external  or  material  sense. 

As  2  Cor.  vi.  14;  Heb.  ii.  14;  iii.  1,  14  ;  vi.  4.  So 
particularly  Luke  v.  7  ;  compared  with  v.  10'.  And  so 
likewise  in  the  very  passage  under  consideration  ;  as  will 
appear  by  comparing  1  Cor.  x.  16  with  ver.  ll.fcj 

From  these  indisputable  proofs  of  the  sense,  in  which 
St.  Paul  uses  these  words,  it  is  abundantly  plain,  that  they 
must  be  interpreted  in  the  same  sense  respectively  in 
those  verses  where  they  occur  in  1  Cor.  ch.  x.  And 
more  especially,  as  what  is  of  importance  to  the  true  in- 
terpretation of  ver.  16,  it  appears  from  these  proofs,  that 
St.  Paul  having  here  made  use  of  the  simple  notvuviu,  not 
the  compound  ffvyHoivuvia,  its  true  and  whole  meaning  in 
this  verse  must  be — each  person's  partaking,  or  partici- 

Philipp.  i.  5  ;  iv.  IS  ;  Heb.  xiii.  16.  And  so  Acts  ii.  42.  But 
with  this  application  of  it  we  have  here  no  concern,  and  when  used 
in  this  sense  it  is  easily  distinguished. 

(cj  SeQ  the  note  on  this  page  at  the  end  of  the  Appendix. 


10  APPlNDIX.  [no.  III. 

patioji,  of  the  body  and  blood  there  mentioned,  and  noth- 
ing tnorc»(^dJ 

And  the  true  sense  of  hoivuviu  in  this  passage  beii% 
thus  ascertained  from  St.  Paul's  undoubted  use  of  it  in 
other  places ;  it  is  of  great  moment,  I  apprehend,  to  ob- 
serve further,  what,  as  far  as  I  know,  has  never  yet  been 
properly  attended  to,  that  though  St.  Paul  has  actually  in- 
serted this  word  only,  in  the  latter  part  of  each  of  the  ques- 
tions, he  here  asks,  the  obvious  sense  of  the  questions 
themselves  absolutely  requires  it  to  be  understood  in  the 
first  part  of  each  question  likewise.  The  cup  or  wine  it- 
self, in  this  rite,  is  the  blood  of  Christ ;  but  it  must  be 
the  partaking  of  the  cup,  that  is,  the  partaking  of  the 
blood  of  Christ :  in  like  maimer  the  bread  itself  is  the 
body  of  Christ ;  but  it  must  be  the  partaking  of  the  bread, 
that  is,  the  partaking  of  the  body  of  Christ.  This  is  self- 
evident.  And  from  this  observation  joined  to  the  forego- 
ing, in  which  the  meaning  of  Hoivmia  was  ascertained,  it 
necessarily  follows,  that  in  order  to  comprehend  St.  Paul's 
true  meaning,  we  must  here  understand  by  the  cup  and  the 
bread,  the  mo<vwv<«,  or  partaking  of  the  cup  and  the  bread, 
in  the  first  part  of  these  questions^  to  answer  to  the 
xo/vftjv/a,  or  partaking  of  the  body  and  blood  in  the  last 
part  of  them.(<'<?y/ 

There  is  still  another  particular,  of  the  utmost  impor- 
tance to  the  meaning  of  St.  Paul  in  this  verse,  and  die 
nature  of  the  right  concerned,  which  it  is  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  clear  up,  because  it  has  been  made  matter  of 
much  doubt ;  and  that  is,  the  true  sense,  in  which  th6 
bread  and  wine  are  here  styled  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ.  And  this  will  apj^eai-  extremely  plain,  merely 
from  considering  the  acknowledged  meaning  of  the  same 
form  of  expression  in  the  appointment  of  the  Jewish  Pas- 
cal Supper;  from  which  Jesus  evidently  borrowed  it, 
when  he  applied  it  to  the  rite  he  himself  ordained. 

As  in  the  institution  of  the  Pascal  Supper,  it  is  said  of  the 
lamb  killed  and  eaten  in  the  manner  prescribed,  It  is  the 

(d)  See  the  note  on  this  page  at  the  end  of  the  Appendix. 

(e)  Sec  the  note  on  this  page  at  the  end  of  the  Appendix- 


NO.  III.]  APPEJJDIX.  41 

hordes  passover  ;(fj  so  in  the  institution  of  the  right  be- 
fore us  Jesus  said,  of  the  bread  and  wine  taken  as  he  di- 
rected, This  IS  my  body  ^  This  is  my  blood  of  the  Ntnv 
Testament  ; — or — This  is  the  New  Testament  in  my 
blood.  I 

And  as  the  Paschal  Lamb,  killed,  dressed,  and  eaten  as 
enjoined,  was  not  the  action  itself  of  the  Lord's  passmg 
over  the  houses  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt ;  but  precisely 
a  religious  memorial  of  that  transaction,  called  by  its 
name  ;  and  expressly  declaimed  to  be  so  at  the  very  time 
of  the  institution  \(g) — So  the  bread  and  w^ine,  taken  as 
Jesus  commanded,  are  not  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the 
blood  oj  Christ  in  the  New  Testament,  themselves ;  but 
precisely  religious  memorials  of  them,  called  by  their 
names  ;  and  expressly  declared  to  be  so,  by  Jesus  him- 
self, in  the  w^ords  of  the  institution. /^A^  In  tliis  sense 
therefore,  and  in  no  other,  must  St.  Paul  have  meant  to 
ask,  Avhether  the  piu  taking  of  them  was  not  the  partaking 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus,  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration. 

From  the  several  remarks  now  made  it  appears,  that  ui 
order  fully  to  express  the  true  sense  of  St.  Paul,  and 
nothing  but  his  sense,  in  ver.  16,  it  must  be  translated  in 
the  following  manner. 

Ver.  16.  The  partaking  of  the  cup  of  blessing,  which 
we  bless,  is  it  not,  to  each  of  us,  the  partaking  of  the  me- 
morial of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  partaking  of  the 
bread,  which  we  break,  is  it  not,  to  each  of  us,  the  partak- 
ing of  the  memorial  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?fij 

Remark  3.  We  translate  ver.  17  thus  ; — For  ive,  be- 
ing many,  are  one  bread,  and  one  body  ;  for  we  are.  all 
partakers  of  that  one  bread. 

(f)  Exod.  xii.  II. 

(s)  See  Exod.  xii.  14,  and  more  at  large  in  No.  II.  of  this  Ap- 
pendix,    (h)  See  Luke  xii.  19,  and  1  Cor.  xi.  24,  25. 

(i)  The  very  important  misconceptions  of  the  rite  in  question, 
which  have  arisen  from  an  obscure  and  mistaken  interpretation  of 
this  verse  especially,  have  rendered  it  necessary  to  ascertain  its 
true  meaning  with  the  utmost  precision. 

•      F 


4fl'  APPENDIX.  [no.  III. 

Now  though  a  meaning  may  be  collected  from  it,  even 
thus  translated,  certainly  the  figure  by  which  we  are  call- 
ed 07ie  bread  is  extremely  forced  and  unusual.  It  is  at 
the  same  time  observable,  that  through  the  whole  argu- 
ment, St.  Paul  has  not  made  even  the  least  use  of  it,  but 
argued  entirely  upon  that  plain  and  familiar  figure  of  styl- 
ing all  one  body.  If  therefore  the  original  will  admit  of 
being  properly  translated,  so  as  to  free  the  passage  from 
this  forced  and  unusual  figure,  which  is  not  only  useless, 
but  even  embarrasses  the  sense,  it  ought  to  be  so  inter- 
preted ;  and  it  has  long  been  observed,  that  it  may  with 
the  strictest  propriety  be  translated  thus  : — Because  the 
bread  is  one,  we  who  are  many  (or,  we  all)  are  one  body  ; 
for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread. 

This  renders  St.  Paul's  meaning  just,  forcible,  and 
clear.  He  first  styles  the  bread — one  bread  ;  evidently 
because  it  is  partaken  of  by  all,  as  the  representative  of  one 
iuid  the  same  thing  ;  and  then  he  argues, — Because  the 
bread  so  partaken  of  is  one,  all  who  thus  partake  of  it  are 
one  body  ;  that  is,  one  collective  body  of  Christians,  dis- 
tinguished from  all  other  collective  bodies,  by  the  cele- 
bration of  this  peculiar  christian  rite.  A  consequence  so 
clear,  that  he  might  well  leave  it  to  the  Corinthians  them- 
selves to  judge  of  its  evidence  and  truth.  This  there- 
fore, I  apprehend,  must  be  admitted  as  the  true  interpre- 
tation of  this  verse.  ^A-^' 

Remark  4.  To  remove  all  obscurity  from  St.  Paul's 
meaning  in  this  whole  passage,  it  is  necessary  to'observe, 
that  ^uiiiovtotg  and  laiii^oviuVy  in  ver.  21, 22,  which  we  trans- 
late, devilsy  ought  to  be  rendered,  davwjis  ;  that  is,  false 
idol  lords,  worshipped  by  the  heathens  as  mediators  be- 
tween their  superior  gods,  Seo/,  and  men. 

Where  the  word  Iuhloviov  is  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  express  the  object  of  heathen  worship,  as  in  this 
passage,  it  must  always,  I  apprehend,  be  translated,  dte- 
mon,(lJ  signifying  the  intermediate  object  of  their  wor- 
ship.    And  that  it  ought  to  be  so  translated  here  is  fur- 

(k)  Sec  the  note  on  this  page  at  the  end  of  the  Appendix 
(I)  As  Acts  xvii.  18,  22.     1  Tim.  iv.  1. 


NO.  III.3  APPkNDIX.  4S 

ther  manifest  from  hence,  that  the  whole  force  of  the  argu- 
ment, which  St.  Paul  here  urges  to  deter  the  Corinthians 
from  all  approaches  to  idolatry,  by  frequenting  the  feasts 
upon  those  sacrifices,  which  were  offered  by  the  heathens 
to  their  J«//xov/«,  does  not  in  any  degi*ee  depend  upon  their 
being  evil  beings,  or  devils ;  but  merely  upon  their  being- 
idols,  or  false  objects  of  worship  ;  so  that  no  one  could 
with  propriety,  or  even  innocence,  offer  worship  to  the 
only  true  God,  and  to  these  dcemons,  or  vain  idols,  like- 
wise./^m^^ 

These  points  settled,  the  whole  passage  before  us,  con- 
taining the  argument  St.  Paul  here  insists  on,  and  some 
consequences  he  draws  from  it  for  the  direction  of  the 
Corinthian  disciples  in  the  point  to  which  it  relates,  may 
now  be  clearly  and  satisfactory  explained.  Through  the 
whole  of  it  the  apostle  has  expressed  himself,  as  he  usu- 
ally does,  with  great  conciseness  ;  and  left  sometliing  to 
be  supplied,  though  nothing  but  what  is  obvious,  in  or- 
der fully  to  express  his  meaning. — Thus  it  is  evident, 
that  ver.  17  wants  something  to  connect  it  with  ver.  16  ; 
and  to  prove  the  point  intended  by  it,  and  connect  it  with 
ver.  18.  And,  of  the  other  verses,  part  require,  and  all 
will  admit,  some  insertions,  to  make  them  express  their 
\vhole  meaning  and  design  ;  as,  it  is  apprehended,  will 
now  be  clearly  seen,  by  the  following  full,  but  exact  and 
close  illustration. 

1  Cor.  chap.  10. 

Ver.  14.  f Flier ef ore  my  beloved  brethren,  Jiee  Jrom 
idolatry. 

15,  I  address  myself  to  you  as  to  men  of  sense  and  dis- 
cretion ;  pass  sentence  yourselves  upou  the  force  and  pro- 
priety o^wJiat  I  advance. 

16.  The  partaking  of  the  cup  of  blessing,  which  we 
bless,  is  it  not  to  each  of  us  the  partaking  of  the  memorial 
of  the  blood  of  Christ,  shed  for  us  ?  The  pai'taking  of  the 
bread,  which  we  break, is  it  not  to  each  of  us  the  partaking 
of  the  memorial  of  the  body  of  Christ,  given  or  broken  for 

(m)  It  is  likewise  evident  that  ^xiudytas  in  verse  20  refers  to  the 
;^ame  object  as  uiaXoi  in  verse  19. 


44  APPENDIX  [no.  III. 

US  ? — And  is  not  our  partaking  of  these  memorials  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Clirist,  in  the  manner  in  wliich  he  com- 
manded his  disciples  to  partake  of  them,  a  pubHc  virtual 
declaration  that  we  are  his  disciples  ?  This  must  cer- 
tainly be  allowed  ;  for — 

17.  Because  the  bread,  thus  taken  by  us  all,  is  One  ; 
i.  e.  is  the  memorial  of  one  and  the  same  thing,  the  body 
of  Christ  ;  xve,  being  many,  are  one  body  ;  i.  e.  we  be- 
come one  body,  viz.  of  Christ's  professed  disciples  ;  for 
"we  are  all  partakers  of  the  one  bread  ;  viz.  that  bread, 
which  so  partaken  of, 'is  to  each  of  us  the  memorial  of  one 
and  die  same  thing, — Christ's  body  broken  for  us. 

It  is  plain  then,  that  our  partaking  of  the  bread,  which 
we  break  in  this  manner,  and  of  the  cup,  which  we  bless 
in  this  manner,  is  a  virtual  public  declaration,  that  we  are 
each  of  us  disciples  of  Christ. — Nor  is  this  apparent,  vir- 
tual declaration  peculiar  to  the  performance  of  this  chris- 
tian rite  alone  ;  the  case  is  exactly  the  same  in  the  Jewish 
worship. 

18.  Behold  Israel  after  the  fesh  :  consider  how  the 
case  stands  with  respect  to  the  Je\vs  :  Are  not  they  which 
eat  of  the  sacrifices  partakers  of  the  altar  ?  Is  not  every 
one,  Avho  eats  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  understood  to  pro- 
fess himself,  by  eating  of  them,  a  disciple  of  Moses,  and 
a  worshipper  of  the  God  of  the  Jews ;  to  whom  the  sacri- 
fice he  eats  of  is  offered  up,  and  tlie  altar  professedly  con- 
secrated ? 

19.  IVhat  say  I  then  ?  What  then  need  I  assert  to 
make  good  the  point,  of  which  I  would  comunce  )'^ou  ; 
viz.  That  it  is  improper  for  you  as  Christians,  to  frequent 
the  idol  feasts  of  the  Gentiles  ?  Need  I  assert — That  an 
idol  is  any  thing  ?  any  real  superior  being  ? — Or,  that 
which  is  o^ered  in  sacrifice  to  idols  is  any  thing  ?  any 
tiling  of  such  a  nature  in  itself,  after  having  been  offered 
to  idols,  that  eating  it  can  pollute  you ;  and  that  you  ought 
not  to  frequent  the  idol  feasts  on  that  account  ? 

Certainly  I  have  no  occasion  to  assert  this  to  prove  my 
point,  nor  do  I  assert  it  :  and  therefore,  your  denying 
this,  and  being  free  from  all  mistaken  prejudices  of  this 


NO.  III.]  •  APPEN-DIX  45 

sort,  cannot  possibly  be  any  answer  to  my  objections  to  * 
your  frequenting  the  idol  feasts. 

20.  But,  what  I  assert  is,  that  the  things,  which  the 
Gentiles  sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  demons,  and  not  to 
God : — ^to  false,  imaginary,  intermediate  lords,  not  to 
the  one  true  God  : — ^nd  I  would  not  that  ye  should  have 
connexion  with  dcemons  ."-^And  what  I  contend  for  is, 
that  you,  who  profess  yourselves  worshippers  of  the  one 
true  God,  ought  not  to  have  any  connexion  whatever 
with  false  imaginary  gods  ; — which  you  must  necessari- 
ly appear  to  some  to  nave,  so  long  as  you  frequent  those 
idol  feasts,  which  are  considered  as  acts  of  religious  wor- 
ship to  the  idols,  or  imaginary  dasmons,  in  honor  of 
whom  they  are  held. 

The  reason  why  I  oppose  your  allowing  yourselves  to 
appear  thus  connected  with  idols,  or  false  imaginary  gods, 
is  nothing  more  than  the  plain  self-evident  impropriety  of 
the  thing. 

21.  Ye  cannot  drink  the  Lord^s  cup,  and  the  cup  of  dee- 
mons  : — If  ye  drink  the  cup  professedly  consecrated  to 
the  Lord  in  the  riglit  instituted  by  Jesus,  and  by  so  doing 
profess  yourselves  disciples  of  Christ,  and  worshippers  of 
the  one  true  God ;  evident  it  is,  that  you  cannot  either 
consistently,  or  innocently  drink  a  cup  consecrated  to 
false  gods,  at  the  feasts  held  in  their  temples  ;  by  drink* 
ing  which  you  appear  to  profess  yourselves  worshippers 
of  those  idols  or  false  gods  : — Ye  cannot  partake  of  the 
Lordh  table,  and  the  table  of  damons  : — If  ye  partake  of 
the  table  consecrated  to  the  Lord,  in  the  rite  instituted  by 
Jesus,  and  by  so  doing  profess  yourselves  disciples  of 
Christ,  and  worshippers  of  the  one  true  God  ;  evident  it 
is,  that  you  cannot  either  consistently,  or  innocentl}'^,  par- 
take of  a  table  consecrated  to  false  imaginary  gods,  in  the 
temples  of  those  gods  ;  by  doing  which  you  appear  to 
profess  yourselves  worshippers  of  those  idols,  or  false 
gods. 

You  cannot  indulge  yourselves  in  this  practice  without 
provoking  the  jealous  anger  of  the  Lord,  by  this  appar- 
ent act  of  idolatry  ;  for  by  idolatry  more  especially,  vou 


^  APPENDIX.  NO.  HI. 

very  well  know,  the  jealous  anger  of  the  Lord  will  certainly 
be  Gxcitcd.f?iJ     Let  me  then  ask  you — 

22.  Do  xuc  provoke  the  lord  to  jealousy  ? — Do  you  re- 
ally choose  to  stir  up  the  jealous  nn^cvfoj  of  tlie  Lord 
against  you,  by  being  guilty  of  this  act  of  appai'ent  idola- 
try ? — ire  xve  stronger  than  he  ? — Are  you  able  to  se- 
cure yourselves  from  the  effects  of  that  wrath  of  God, 
which  your  continuance  in  this  act  of  apparent  idolatry 
will  certainly  draw  upon  you  ? 

As  I  have  already  s<{\6.,fpj  to  you,  who  have  knowledge ; 
who  know  th^t  an  idolis  nothi?2g  ;  no  real  God  ;^^>^  and 
that  ivhat  is  offered  to  idols  is  nothing;  nothing  in  itself  ca- 
pable of  polluting  you  by  eating  it  ;frj  to  you,  as  far  as 
concerns  yourselves  only,  there  cannot  be  any  harm  in 
the  mere  action  of  partaking  of  things  offered  to  idols. 
I  grant  therefore,  that  if  the  matter  was  to  be  considered 
with  respect  to  yourselves  onh',  it  \vould  be  allowable 
for  you  to  do  it.  But  will  you  therefore  contend,  that 
there  cannot  be  any  good  reasons  against  it  ? 

23.  All  things  are  lawful  for  me^  but  all  things  are  not 
expedie?it : — Because  an  action  is  such,  that,  considered 
witli  respect  to  myself  only,  it  would  not  be  criminal  to 
me  ;  it  does  not  follow,  that  therefore  it  must  be  profitable, 
or  expedient. — 411  things  are  lawful  for  me,  but  all  thi?igs 
edify  not : — Because  an  action  is  such,  that,  considered 
with  respect  to  myself  onl}'^,  it  would  not  be  criminal  in 
me  ;  it  does  not  follow,  that  therefore  m}'  doing  it  will 
contribute  to  the  edification  and  good  of  others. 

Certain  it  is,  that  though  your  partaking  of  idol  feasts 
cannot  be  prejudicial  to  you,  who  have  knowledge  to  pre- 

(n)  Vide  the  second  commandment. 

(o)  Bishop  Pearce  observes  upon  the  place  (see  his  Commenta- 
ry, vol.  ii.  p.  257)  that  the  word  in  the  original  does  not  necessarily 
signify  jealousy  :  but  when  we  consider  the  second  command- 
ment, we  may,  I  should  suppose,  with  peculiar  propriety  translate 
it,  jealous  anger,  in  this  pariicular  passage  ;  where  the  giving 
countenance  to  idolatry  is  the  very  offence,  against  which  the  apos- 
tle is  cautioning  the  Corintliians, 

(p.)  1  Cor.  viii.  1.  (q)  Ch.  viii.  4. 

(r)  Ch.  X.  19. 


NO.  III.]  APPENDIX.  47 

vent  it  ',fsj  yet  may  your  example  in  this  instance,  as  I 
have  already  told  you,  f^ J  be  of  great  prejudice  to  such  of 
your  fellow  Christians,  as  have  not  an  equal  degree  of 
knowledge  in  these  particulars  with  yourselves.  The 
immediate  consequence  of  which  can  be  no  other  than 
this  ;  that  you  must  regulate  your  conduct  in  this  partic- 
ular, as  in  all  others,  by  the  extensive  principles  of  that 
sincere  benevolence  enjoined  in  the  law  of  Christ. 

24.  Let  no  mani  seek  his  own,  but  every  man  another^ s 
good. — Let  no  man,  in  any  instance,  for  a  satisfaction  to 
himself,  do  what  he  knows  will  be  attended  with  a  real 
mischief  to  others  ;  but  forego  any  such  pleasure  to  him- 
self, for  the  sake  of  promoting  the  good  of  others.  Let 
no  man  therefore  frequent  idol  feasts  in  the  heathen  tem- 
ples for  his  own  gratification  ;  but  absolutely  abstain  from 
them,  that  he  may  not  set  an  example,  which  will  prove  in 
the  end  prejudicial  to  others. 

The  extensive  principles  of  sincere  christian  benevo- 
lence, if  properly  attended  to,  will  clearly  teach  you  what 
course  you  have  to  pursue,  with  regard  to  this  matter, 
upon  all  occasions.     As  first, 

25.  Whatsoever  is  sold  in  the  shambles,  that  eat,  asking 
no  questions  ,or  conscience  sake. — Whatever  meat  you 
find  publicly  exposed  for  sale,  in  the  customary  manner, 
make  no  scruple  of  eating,  without  making  any  inquiry 
into  the  particular  occasion,  on  which  it  was  killed.  For 
though  it  should  have  been  part  of  a  sacrifice  offered  to 
idols,  as  this  is  not  known,  nor  supposed  to  be  known,  to 
you,  your  eating  it  cannot  possibly  mislead,  or  give  of- 
fence to  any  one. 

26.  For  the  earth  is  the  Loi'd^s,  and  the  fullness  thereof. 
— For,  as  every  good  thing  with  which  the  earth  abounds 
is  created  by  the  one  true  God  ;  certainly  we  may  par- 
take of  them  all,  where  no  particular  circumstance  inter- 
feres, as  given  us  by  him. — Again, 

27.  If  any  of  them  that  believe  not  bid  you  to  a  feast, 
and  ye  be  disposed  to  go,  whatsoever  is  set  before  you,  eat . 

(s)  1  Cor.  viii.  1,  4,         (t)  Ch.  viii.  7,  9—13. 


40  APPENDIX.  £nO.  HI, 

asking  no  questions  for  conscience  sake* — By  this  means, 
as  before,  your  eating  what  is  set  before  you  cannot  mis- 
lead, or  give  offence  to  any  one. 

28.  But  if  any  one  say  unto  you.  This  has  been  offered 
in  sacrifiee  unto  idols,  eat  not  ;  for  his  sake  that  shewed  it^ 
and  for  conscience  sake. — For  by  eating  in  this  case,  you 
may  set  a  prejudicial  example  to  him  who  informed  you 
it  had  been  offered  to  idols  ;  which  by  the  laws  of  chris- 
tian charity  just  mentioned  you  ought  conscientiously  to 
avoid. — \_For  the  earth  is  the  Lord^s,  and  the  fullness  there- 
of.— For,  since  every  thing  with  which  the  earth  abounds 
is  created  by  the  one  true  God,  }^ou  ought  not  to  partake 
of  any  of  them  under  such  circumstances,  as  may  give 

'  room  to  others  to  conclude,  that  you  attribute  them  to 
idols,  or  false  imaginary  gods.]rwJ 

29.  Conscience,  I  so,y-)  not  thine  own,  but  of  the  othefs. 
— But,  mistake  me  not ;  I  do  not  mean,  that  in  this  case 
you  should  abstain  for  any  scruples  you  ought  to  enter- 
tain in  your  own  minds  ;  but  purely  as  a  duty  of  chris- 
tian benevolence,  that  you  may  not  give  offence  to  him 
who  told  you,  or  be  the  means  of  leading  him  into  error* 
— For,  why  is  my  liberty  judged  of  another  man's  con- 
science ? — For  certainly  there  cannot  be  '^^Ry  good  reason, 
why  I  should.abridge  myself  of  a  liberty,  vdiich  is  inno- 
cent in  me,  but  this  ;  That  I  ought  to  avoid  shocking 
the  prejudices  of  another,  and  leading  him  into  evil. — ; 
That  there  is  no  reason  respecting  myself  only,  why  I 
ought  to  abstain  from  eating,  in  this  case,  is  plain  : — 

30.  For  if  I  by  grace(dc)  be  a  partaker  ;  why  am  I 
evil  spoken  of  for  that,  for  which  I  give  thanks  ? — For  if 
I  partake  of  any  thing  witli  proper  thankfulness  to  God, 
from  whom  it  originally  comes  ;  there  cannot  be  any  rea- 
son whatever,  relating  to  myself  alone,  why  I  should  be 

Cu)  Such  appears  to  be  the  natural  meaning  of  this  clause  in 
this  place,  if  the  repetition  of  it  here  be  genuine  ;  which  however 
there  seems  reason  to  believe  is  not,  as  it  is  a  manifest  interruption 
to  the  reasoning  of  the  passage. 

("x)  It  ought  to  be  translsted — nvith  thanksgiving  :— 9ee  Bp. 
Pearce  qn  the  place.     Comment,  vol.  ii.  p.  259. 


NO.  III.3  APPENDIX.  49 

evil  spoken  of,  for  partaking  of  that,  for  which  I  am  prop* 
erly  thankful  to  the  Creator  of  all  things. 

It  is  evident  there  cannot  be  any  ;  and  therefore,  the 
rule,  by  which  you  must  conduct  yourselves  in  this  whole 
aftair,  is  the  great  law  of  christian  charity  just  mention- 
ed. 
'  31.  Whether  thei'efore  ye  eat  or  drink,  or  whatsoever  ye 
4oy  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God. — With  regard  therefore  to 
the  point  under  consideration,  as  well  as  to  every  other,  be 
careful  to  act  in  such  a  manner,  upon  every  occasion,  as 
plainly  to  shew  yourselves  sincere  worshippers  of  the  one 
true  God ;  in  opposition  to  ever}',  the  least  appearance  of 
idolatry. 

32.  Give  no?ie  oj^ence  ;  neither  to  the  Jeivs,  nor  to  the 
Gentiles.)  nor  to  the  church  of  God. — Be  careful  not  to 
place  any  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  tlie  unbelieving 
Jews  and  Greeks,  which  may  prevent  their  conversion  to 
the  faith  in  the  one  true  God,  in  the  gospel ;  and  neither 
to  give  offence  to  your  weaker  christian  brethren  ;  nor  to 
be  the  means  of  leading  them  into  any  practice,  which 
they  themselves  esteem  sinful. 

33.  Eveji  as  I  please  all  men  in  all  things,  not  seeking 
mine  own  p7'oJit,  but  that  of  the  many,  that  they  may  be 
saved. — In  acting  thus  you  will  do  no  more  than  I  myself 
do  ;  for  it  is  my  rule,  on  all  occasions,  to  prefer  the  good 
and  salvation  of  others,  to  my  own  immediate  ease  and 
satisfaction. 

Ch.  xi.  I.  Be  ye  followers  of  me,  even  as  I  also  am  of 
Christ. — As  in  this  I  have  set  Christ  before  myself  for 
my  example,  so  ought  you  to  take  me  for  yours. 

From  this  illustration  of  the  whole  passage  before  us, 
which,  if  I  mistake  not,  renders  St.  Paul's  method  of  ar- 
guing in  it  cleai*,  pertinent,  and  conclusive  ;  and  which 
is  founded  on  the  true  meaning  of  his  words,  as  they  are 
used  by  St.  Paul  himself,  and  the  other  sacred  writers, 
throughout  the  New  Testament ;  it  is  obvious,  that  through 
this  whole  passage,  the  apostle  has  not  either  expressly 
asserted,  or  said  what  implies,  any  thing  concerning  the 

G 


^  APPENDIX.  [no.  ill 

nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  more  than  this  ; — That  the 
celebration  of  this  rite  was  necessarily  to  be  considered, 
and  always  actually  was  considered,  as  a  public  profession, 
by  every  person,  who  assisted  at  it,  that  he  himself  was  a 
believer  in  Christ,  and  a  worshipper  of  the  one  tnie 
God. 

The  whole  strength  of  St.  Paul's  argument  in  this  pas- 
sage, as  far  as  it  relates  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  founded 
on  this  consideration,  and  this  only  ;  the  inference  he 
draws  requires  no  other  principle  to  be  allowed,  to  make 
it  valid  and  complete  ;  nor  will  the  use,  to  which  he  has 
here  applied  it,  admit  of  any  other  consideration  to  be  add- 
ed to  it.  No  other  conclusion  therefore,  relative  to  the;; 
specific  nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  can  possibly  be 
drawn  from  any  thing  the  apostle  has  here  said  relating  to 
it,  than  this  ; — That  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper  must 
certainly  be  considered  as  a  virtual  declaration,  on  the 
part  of  each  communicant,  that  he  is  a  believer  in  Jesus, 
and  a  worshipper  of  the  one  true  God,  in  opposition  to 
every  species  of  idolatry. — And  this  certainly  was  a  truth 
so  evident,  that  St.  Paul  might  well  appeal  to  it,  in  the 
manner  he  has  ;  and  leave  it  to  the  sense  and  discretion 
of  the  Corinthians  themselves,  to  pass  sentence  upon  the 
manifest  truth  and  propriety  of  the  conclusion  he  drew 
from  it,  for  the  future  regulation  of  their  o^vn  con- 
duct. 

After  the  full  inquiry  we  have  now  made  into  the  true 
meaning  of  St.  Paul  in  his  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
ch.  X.  14,  &c.  no  suspicion,  it  is  hoped,  can  still  remain, 
that  any  particular  information,  relative  to  the  specific  na- 
ture and  design  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  can  possibly,  be 
drawn  from  what  St.  Paul  Jias  there  said  concerning  it. 
But  since  a  remarkable  argument  has  been  founded  upon 
this  particular  passage,  which  appeared  to  its  very  emin- 
ent author.  Dr.  Cudworth,  and  has  appeared  to  others  of 
the  greatest  name  since  fy J  him,  as  an  absolute  demon- 

fyj  See  in  particular  a  treatise,  entitled,  "  A  rational  account  of 
the  natuix;  and  end  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,"  by 
Bishop  Warburton- 


....  -  * 

!N0.  III.]  APFElTDI3t.  51 

stration,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  rite  of  a  very  different 
nature  from  what  we  have  yet  found  it  to  be  ;  it  will  add  to 
our  satisfaction  upon  this  point,  though  it  is  by  no  means 
necessary,  if  by  taking  a  view  of  what  Dr.  Cudworth  ha^ 
advanced  in  favour  of  that  opinion,  which  he  was  the  first 
proposer  of,  and  imagined  he  had  demonstrated,  we  can 
shew  it  to  be  founded  in  mistake.  This  therefore  will  be 
particularly  considered  in  No.  VII  of  this  Appendix. 


APPENDIX.  [no.  IV. 


NUMBER  IV.CaJ 

THE  Ciiristians  at  Corinth  having  been  guilty  of  great 
improprieties  in  their  behavior,  when  assembled  together 
to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper ;  St.  Paul  reproves  them  on 
this  account,  in  1st  Epist.  Cor.  xi.  20 — 32. 

Of  this  passage  ver.  23, 24,  25,  contain  St.  Paul's  his- 
tory of  the  instituiion  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  have  been 
already  considered ; (bj  and  ver.  26,  the  apostle's  own 
explanation  of  its  use  and  design  ;  and  the  only  verses, 
which  can  induce  us  to  doubt,  whether  that  explanation  of 
its  specific  nature,  to  which  we  have  hitherto  been  forced 
to  assent,  is  a  true  and  complete  account  of  it  or  not,  are 
the  following,  from  27  to  32. 

27.  Wherefore,  whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  the 
cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord. 

28.  But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  the 
bread,  and  drink  of  the  cup. 

29.  For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drink- 
eth  damnation  to  himself ;  not  discerning  the  Lord's  body. 

30.  For  this  cause  many  are  weak  and  sickly  among  you,  and 
many  sleep. 

31.  For  if  we  would  judge  ourselves,  wc  should  not  be  judged. 

32.  But  when  we  are  judged,  we  are  chastened  of  the  Lord^;  that 
we  should  not  be  condemned  with  the  world. 

To  understand  this  passage,  it  is  necessary  to  observe, 
First,  That  by  eating  and  drinking  iinivorthUy  ;  or,  as 
it  may  be  translated,  unworthily  of  the  Lord.,  ver.  27  ;  is 
precisely  meant,  eating  and  drinking  in  the  Lord's  Supper, 
without  seriously  considering,  and  by  that  means  without 
behaving,  as  becomes  those,  who  do  seriously  consider, 
that  this  rite  is  always  to  be  celebrated,  as — A  religious 
commemoration  of  our  Lord,  but  more  especially  of  his 
death,  and  the  general  purpose  for  which  he  died  ; — inten- 
ded to  show  his  death  till  he  come. 

Secondly, — That  the  examination  of  themselves  before 
they  partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  enjoined  in  ver.  28, 

CaJ  See  Proposition  XXV, page  12. 

( bj  Sec  Sections  IV.  and  V.  of  the  Treatise  itself 


wo.  IV.]  APPENDIX*  5S 

caniiot  signify  any  thing  more,  than  such  a  degree  of  seri- 
ous reflection  upon  the  action  they  were  about  to  perform, 
as  would  secure  their  partaking  of  it  with  a  proper  atten- 
tion to  its  rehgious  design. 

Thirdly, — It  is  an  agreed  point,  that  the  word  damna- 
tion^ which  our  translation  has  adopted  in  ver.  29,  is  here 
improperly  made  use  of,  instead  of  the  more  general  term 
judgment^  or  condemnation  ;  and  that  it  here  refers  express- 
ly to  nothing  more,  than  the  temporal  punishments  made 
mention  of  in  ver.  30  ;  and  which  St.  Paul  informs  them 
were  inflicted  on  them  as  merciful  chastisements  ;  in  ver. 
32.  And  it  is  further  certain,  that  by  not  discerning  the 
Lord'^s  body,  as  we  translate  the  words  in  the  same  verse, 
St.  Paul  meant,  not  attending  to  that  distinction  between 
the  common  use  of  bread  and  wine,  and  the  partaking  of 
them  as  the  religious  memorials  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Jesus  ;  which  the  nature  of  such  a  commemoration  requir- 
ed. 

The  only  particular,  therefore,  which  can  lead  us  to 
doubt,  whether  the  Lord's  Supper  has  not  something 
more  in  its  nature,  than  we  ha^e  }-et  been  able  to  discov- 
er, must  be  this  ;  that  it  is  here  declared.  Whoever  shall 
eat  and  drink  unworthily,  or  without  suitable  serious  re- 
flection and  behaviour,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  the  Lord. 

This  expression,  it  must  be  confessed,  is  so  obscure,  as 
to  render  it  extremely  difficult  to  assign  its  true  meaning. 

The  only  natural  meaning  of  the  Avords  themselves  is, 
being  gidlty  of  wounding  his  body,  and  shedding  his  blood; 
or,  in  other  words,  guilty  of  putting  him  to  death. 

But  certain  it  is,  that  they  among  the  Corinthians,  who, 
when  met  together  to  paitake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  had 
behaved  in  that  irreverent  and  indecent  manner,  which  St. 
Paul  in  this  letter  to  them  has  informed  us  they  did,  had 
neither  been  guilty  of  putting  our  Lord  to  death,  nor  of 
any  sin  equal  to  that ;  but  only,  of  shewing  themselves,  in 
that  instance,  in  a  ver}^  high  degree  culpably  destitute  of 
all  serious  reflection  on  the  goodness  of  our  Lord,  so  sig- 
nally displayed  in  his  suflferings  and  deatli ;  which  '.vant> 


fi*  APPENDIX,  iLNb.iVk 

of  serious  reflection, thoughextremelyblaiTicable,  and  wor^ 
thy  of  punishment,  was  by  no  means  to  be  compared  to 
the  crime  of  actually  putting  Jesus  to  death.  So  that  the 
first  and  obvious  meaning  of  our  translation  of  this  pas- 
sage, cannot  possibly  be  the  true  meaning  of  St.  Paul. 

To  convince  the  Corinthians  of  the  impropriety  of 
that  indecent  l^ehaviour,  they  had  been  guilty  of,  at  their 
meetings  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper,  St.  Paul,  having 
first  repeated  Tc J  the  history  of  its  institution,  which  clos- 
es with  this  command.  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me  ;  ih 
order  to  make  them  properly  sensible  of  the  solemn  na- 
ture of  this  rite,  immediately  adds,  from  himself,— ;/or 
as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  anddrink  this  cup,  ye  do  shev^ 
(proclaim)  the  Lord''s  death,  till  he  come.(d) — Having 
thus  reminded  them,  that  it  was  the  death  of  Christ  in 
particular,  for  the  commemoration  of  which  this  rite  was 
more  especially  enjoined,  he  directly  draws  this  conse- 
quence from  that  consideration  ; — Wherefore,  whosoever 
shall  eat  this  bread,  anddrink  this  cup  of  the  L^yrd,  unwor- 
thily^ (i.  e.  in  an  inconsiderate  and  indecent  manner,  as 
they  had  done  ; )  shall  be,  as  we  translate  it,  guilty  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord. 

St.  Paul  says,  wherefore,  whosoever  shall  eat,  &c.  If 
we  ask  why  ?  it  is  evident  he  means,  because  this  rite 
was  designed,  more  especially,  to  shew  the  Lord''s  death  ; 
— to  be  a  religious  commemoration  of  his  sufferings  and 
death  in  particular.  So  that  whoever  behaved  at  the  cel- 
ebration of  this  rite  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  shew  a  thought- 
less disregard,  and  want  of  serious  attention  to  it,  did,  by 
tliat  particular  misbehaviour,  unavoidably  shew  a  disregard 
and  want  of  serious  attention  to  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Gur  Lord  ;  in  some  small  degree  similar  to,  though  by  no 
means  to  be  compared  with,  that  of  those,  who  actually 
caused  him  to  be  put  to  death  :  and  consequently,  so  far 
as  the  want  of  proper  attention  to  his  sufferings  and  death, 
in  this  instance,  bore  a  resemblance  to  that  of  those,  who 
actually  caused  him  to  be  put  to  death  ;  so  far  they  be- 

CO  Ver.  23—25.  ^d)  Ver.  26. 


IfO,  IV.3  APPENDI^i.  55 

came  guilty,  as  avc  translate  the  word,  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord. 

Thus  mterpreted,  what  St.  Paul  here  says  is  easy,  and 
intelligible,  as  well  as  strictly  just  and  true ;  but  in  no 
other  sense  can  it  possibly  be  either  intelligible,  just,  or; 
true.fcj  And  the  fact  is,  that  this  is  the  true  meaning) 
of  the  apostle's  own  words  ;  and  that  the  obscurity  of  the 
passage  arises  wholly  from  an  impropriety  in  the  transla. 
tion. 

The  original  is,  svo^og  e^cti  rs  auiAxrog,  &c.  and  the  wordi 
svoxos  is  of  such  extensive  use  and  application,  that,  on, 
different  occasions,  the  obvious  sense  of  the  passage  will 
force  us  to  translate  it  in  a  very  different  manner. 

In   Matt.   ch.    xxvi.    66. — evoxog  ^ctvarov  so-xe  ;      and- 
Mark,  ch.  xiv.   64. — eivui  evcjcov  ^uvctrov  ;    it  may  with 
propriety   be  translated  ^wz/fz/  of;    hecausey  guilty  of 
death,  is  an  elliptical  expression,^  which  use  has   render- 
ed famihai* ;  and  the  meaning  of  which  answers  exactly^ 
to  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  these  two  passages; 

But  in  Matt.  V.  21,  22. — evoxog  s^nviM^urei-^—rf  (jwt^it/ ^ 
—aQ  rviv  yeevuv  ; — and  Mark  iii.  29. — svox^og  euv  uiuvicv 
n^t(T£ug; — and  Heb.  ii.    15. — evoxoi  v\(reiv  ^SmXetag  ; — in  alh 
these  passages  it  must  of  necessity  be  translated — subject 
to,  exposed  to,  liable  to,  obnoxious  to,  Sec. ;  and  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  rendered — guilty  of. 

And  in  1  Cor.  xi.  27,  the  passage  under  consideration, 
fvo^gc?  cyai  Tov  (TuiLciTog  ;  as  well  as  in  James  ii.  10.< — 
ysyoMs  TuvTwv  £voX,og,  which  is  exactly  similar  to  it ;  to 
give  it  its  true  and  proper  meaning,  it  must  be  rendered 
in  a  different  manner  still ;  such  as, — offends  agai?ist — 
afft'ontsr-^shews  a  disrespect  to.  Sec. — Or  still  more  fully, 
is  guilty  of  offending  against — guilty  of  affro?iting — 
guilty  of  shelving  a  disrespect  to,  &c. — Not  absolutely, 
guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  iw  the  one  instance  ; 
or,  guilty  of  all  the  commandments,  in  the  other. 

The  necessity  there  is  for  translating  the  vv^ord  in  this 
mamier,  in  these  two  perfectly  similar  passages,  is  not 

Cc^  See  the  note  on  this  page,  at  the  end  of  the  Appendix, 


S6  APPENDIX.  [no.  I\^. 

only  evident  from  the  reason  of  the  thing,  but  likewise 
from  St.  James^  explanation  of  his  own  meaning. 

St.  James  says,(^  Whosoever  shall  offend  against  one 
commandment  of  the  law — yeyove  itavrwy  evoxog  ;  \\  hich 
we  translate,  is  guilty  of  all. — But  here  the  evident  reason 
of  the  thing  must  convince  us,  that  this  translation  is  im- 
proper ;  because  it  makes  St.  James  affirm  what  is  abso- 
lutely false  ;  and  what  indeed  he  has  informed  us,  he  did 
not  mean.  Whoever  breaks  one  commandment  of  the 
law  only  is  far  less  guilty  than  he,  ■who  actually  breaks 
them  all.  The  utmost  that  with  truth  can  be  said  of  him, 
who  breaks  one  only^  is,  that  he  offends  against,  or  sliews  a 
disrespect  to,  all ;  by  offending  against,  in  one  instance, 
that  authority,  which  equally  enjoins  all :  and  this  the 
apostle  himself  has  informed  us,  was  exactly  what  he 
'm^m-it.fgj  Here  therefore  it  is  manifest,  that  evo'X^og 
ysyove  should  not  have  been  rendered,  absolutely,  is  guilty 
of;  but  ought  to  have  been  translated,  becomes  an  affront- 
er of;  or  becomes  guilty  of  affronting  ;  or,  of  shewing  a 
disrespect  to,  all  the  rest. 

And  for  the  self  same  reasons,  in  the  passage  before  us, 
fvo%of  yeyove  tov  oruy^uToi  ought  not  to  have  been  translat- 
ed, absolutely,  is  guilty  of  the  body,  ^c,  but  should  have 
been  rendered  by  some  such  expression  as,  offends  against, 
ajfronts,  shows  a  disrespect  to  ;  Or,  more  fully,  is  guilty  of 
offending  against,  affronting,  or  shewing  a  disrespect  to,  the 
body  and  blood,  that  is,  the  memorials  of  the  body  and 
blood,  and,  consequently,  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ,  ^/zy" 

From  the  parallel  passage  of  St.  James,  therefore,  as 
well  as  from  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself,  it  is  evident, 

(f)  Chap.  ii.   10. 

(g)  James  ii.   11. 

Ch)  The  reader  may  have  the  satisfaction  of  finding  this  inter- 
pretation confirmed  by  the  authority  of  Bp.  Pearce,  in  his  Com- 
mentary and  note  vipon  the  passage,  vol.  II.  p.  270.  Though  there, 
in  the  note,  by  filling  up  the  vi^ords  of  St.  James  thus, — is  guilty  of 
the  breach  of  all  ; — he  undesignedly  goes  further  than  either  his  own 
interpretation  of  the  original  word,  or  the  reason  of  the  thing,  will 
warrant.     See  likewise  his  note  on  Matt.  ch.  v.  21.  vol.  I.  p.  30. 


NO.  IV.^  APPENDIX.  57 

that  this  obscure  expression,  is  guilty  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord^  is  improperly  adopted  by  our  translation 
in  Cor.  ch.  xi.  27  ;  and  that  the  real  meaning  of  St.  Paul 
himself,  in  this  passage,  cannot  possibly  afford  us  any 
foundation  whatever,  for  attributing  to  the  specific  nature 
and  design  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  any  thing  more  than,  or 
different  from,  what  we  have  found  it  to  be,  by  consider- 
ing the  history  of  its  institution,  and  all  the  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances attending  it. 

Should  it  nevertheless  be  imagined,  that  even  those 
temporal  punishments,  which  St.  Paul  here  tells  the  Co- 
rinthians had  actually  overtaken  them,  on  account  of 
their  unworthy,  indecent  behaviour,  Avhen  met  together 
to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper,  seem  to  shew,  that  this 
rite  must  contain  something  more  in  its  nature,  than  has 
yet  appeared  from  all  the  particulars  of  its  institution  ; 
the  answer  is  easy  and  obvious. 

From  the  history  of  the  institution  it  is  indisputably 
certain,  that  our  Saviour  himself  neither  annexed  any 
special  benefits  to  the  due  performance  of  this  rite  ;  nor 
any  special  evils  to  the  omission,  or  unworthy  perform* 
ance  of  it.  And  since  it  is  likewise  certain,  that  none  of 
the  apostles  have  given  us  even  the  least  intimation  of 
any  such  appointment ;  it  necessarily  follows,  that  as  far 
as  depends  upon  the  nature  of  the  rite  itself,  no  other 
blessings  or  evils  can  arise  from  the  due  celebration,  or 
faulty  neglect  of  it,  than  those  already  enumerated  in 
Propositions  XIII  and  XIV. 

But  St.  Paul  has  here  informed  us,  that  the  Corin- 
thians were  punished  in  a  special  manner,  for  their  un- 
worthy behaviour  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  with  weakness, 
sickness,  and  death  ;  and  this  with  a  special  design  to 
chastise  the  persons  so  offending,  in  this  world  ;  in  order 
to  prevent  them  from  being  condemned  in  the  next. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  these  judgments,  which  were 
inflicted  on  the  Corinthians,  were  not  any  established 
punishments,  annexed  to  the  unworthy  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  always  accompanying  it,  on  account 
of  any  thing  peculiar  in  the  nature  and  effects  of  the 


5S'  APPENDIX,  NO.  IV. 

rite  itself;  but  extraordinary  punishments,  inflicted  on 
them  by  the  special  providence  of  God,  at  that  particular 
time  only  ;  in  order  the  more  effectually  to  further  the 
propagation,  and  secure  the  establishment  of  the  gospel, 
in  those  early  days  of  its  infant  state. 


KO.  V.J  APPENDIX.  59 

NUMBER  N.(a) 

THE  passage  here  referred  to  is  1st  Epist.  Corinth, 
jchap.  V.  ver.  7,  8  ;  and  is  as  follows. 

"  Christ  our  Passover  is  sacrificed  for  us  ;  therefore 
*•'■  let  us  keep  the  feast,  not  with  old  leaven,  neither  \vith 
"  the  leaven  of  malice  and  wickedness,  but  with  tiie 
*'■  unleavened  bread  of  sincerity  and  truth." 

As  this  passage  is  wholly  figurative,  styles  Christ  our 
passover,  makes  mention  of  his  being  sacrificed  for  us, 
and  exhorts  us  to  keep  the  feast  in  a  particular  manner  ; 
it  may  possibly  at  first  view,  and  while  considered  merely 
by  itself,  excite  a  confused  suspicion  that  it  relates  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  ;  and  that  it  is  founded  on  something  in 
the  nature  of  that  rite,  which  we  have  not  yet  discovered. 
But  if  we  consider  it,  as  it  stands  connected  with  what 
goes  before  it,  which  is  absolutely  necessary  to  ascertain 
its  true  meaning,  w^  shall  be  satisfactorily  convinced,  that 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  so  much  as  alluded  to  in  it ;  and 
that  it  is  not  even  capable  of  being  applied  to  that  rite. 

St.  Paul  is  here  addressing  the  Corinthian  disciples 
upon  a  very  particular  occasion. 

Ch.  V.  ver.  1 .  It  is  reported  commonly,  (says  the  Apostle)  that 
there  is  fornication  among  you  ;  and  such  fornication  as  is  not  so 
much  as  named  among  the  Gentiles  ;  that  one  should  have  his 
father's  wife. 

2.  And  ye  are  puffed  up,  and  have  not  rather  mourned  ;  that 
he  that  hath  done  this  deed  might  be  taken  away  from  among  you. 

3.  For  I  verily,  as  absent  in  body,  but  present  in  spirit,  have 
judged  already,  as  though  I  were  present,  <;oncerning  him  that  hath 
so  done  this  deed  :— . 

4.  In  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  when  ye  are  gathered 
together,  and  my  spirit,  with  the  power  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ; 

5.  To  deliver  such  an  one  to  Satan,  for  the  destrviction  of  the 
flesh  ;  that  the  spirit  may  be   saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus'. 

6.  Your  glorying  is  not  good:  know  ye  not  that  a  little  leaven 
'leaveneth  the  whole  lump  ? 

7.  Purge  out  therefore  the  old  leaven,  that  yc  may  be  a  new 
lump  ;  as  ye  are  unleavened.  For  even  Christ,  our  Passoverj  is 
^■.acrificed  for  us  : 

C&J  See  proposition  XXVI,  page   12. 


6%  APPENDIX.  [no.  V. 

8.  Therefore  let  us  keep  the  feast,  not  with  old  leaven,  neither 
with  the  le-iven  of  ewilCbJ  and  wickedness  ;  but  with  the  unleav- 
ened bread  of  sincerity  and  truth. 

Such  is  the  whole  connected  passage :  and  if  for  a  moment 
we  suppose  St.  Paul  to  have  alluded  to  the  Lord's  Supper 
in  the  last  clause  of  it,  his  reasoning  must  then  unavoida- 
bly stand  thus  : 

"  I  condemn  you  Corinthians  for  suffering  so  extraor- 
dinary a  species  of  fornication,  as  I  hear  of,  to  be  practised 
among  you  without  reproof ;  and  I  command  you,  l^y  my 
apostolical  authority,  to  put  away  from  among  you  the 
person  who  has  been  guilty  of  it.  And  this  I  enjoin  you 
purposely  that  more  persons  may  not  become  guilty  of  as 
flagrant  enormities,  by  the  influence  of  his  example.  You 
know  that  a  little  leaven  Icaveneth  the  whole  mass  in  which 
it  is  suffered  to  remain ;  and  you  ought  therefore  to  be 
solicitous  to  separate  from  you  every  one,  who  is  guilty  of 
such  enormities,  as  tend  naturally  to  destroy  in  others  that 
purity  of  manners  required  of  you  by, the  gospel.  For 
as  Christ,  who  may  be  called  our  Passover,  is  sacrificed 
for  us  ;  we  ought  (to  do  what  ?)  to  celebrate  the  LorcPs 
Supper^  not  with  old  leaven,  our  old  accustomed  vices ;  nor 
with  the  leaven  of  evil  and  wickedness ;  but  with  the 
unleavened  bread  of  sincere  goodness  and  truth  ;  i.  e. 
with  a  virtuous  and  pure  conversation." 

Such  must  St.  Paul's  reasoning  here  be,  if  by  keeping 
the  feast  he  meant — celebrating  the  Lord'^s  Supper^  in  the 
passage  in  question.  To  convince  the  Corinthians,  that 
they  ought  to  expel  from  their  society  the  fornicator  he 
mentions ;  and  that  for  this  particular  reason,  which  he 
expressly  assigns,  lest  his  unpunished  wickedness  should 
embolden  others  to  an  indulgence  in  equal  vices  ;  he  must 
here  have  meant  to  remind  them  of  the  obligations  they 
were  under  as  Christians,  (not,  to  regulate  their  lives  by 
the  pure  and  virtuous  precepts  of  the  gospel ;  but,  truly), 
to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  with  a  proper  disposition. 
But  this  interpretation  of  the  Apostle's  meaning  is  sui-ely 

(b)  So  the  word  x«xt«  should  be  translated,  instead  of  malice  s 
which  is  focei^n  to  tiie  meaning  of  the  passage. 


JirO.  v.]  APPENDIX.  61 

so  manifestly  improper,  and  even  absurd,  that  there  is  no 
possibility  of  admitting  it  as  true. 

Evident  it  is,  that  St.  Paul  does  not  here  object  to  the 
person,  whom  he  orders  them  to  put  away  from  them,  that 
he  had  been  guilty  of  profaning  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  but 
that  he  was  guilty  of  such  immoral  conduct,  as  was  ut- 
terly inconsistent  with  the  purity  required  of  a  disciple  of 
Christ.  In  all  that  St.  Paul  says,  both  of  the  person  and 
the  oftence,^c^  his  thoughts  are  wholly  taken  up  with  the 
vicious  and  moral  nature  of  the  offence  itself ;  without 
even  the  least  glance  at  any  remote  effect  of  it,  in  profan- 
ing either  his  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  any  oth- 
er act  of  religious  worsliip,  which  it  equally  prophaned.. 
And  since  it  is  certain,  that  there  is  not  even  the  remotest 
hint  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  the  five  first  verses,  in  which 
he  insists  upon  the  enormity  of  the  offence,  and  directs 
them  to  separate  from  them  the  person  v/ho  was  guilty  of 
it ;  it  would  be  absurd  to  imagine,  that  in  the  three  next 
he  should  mean  to  tell  them,  and  this  without  any  thing  to 
introduce  it,  that  they  must  separate  from  the  person  in 
question,  for  this  strange  reason  above  all  others, — lest 
they  should  come,  like  him,  to  prophane  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. 

By  a  figurative  expression  of  keeping  the  feast ^  and  the 
manner  in  which  they  should  keep  it,  it  is  plain  St.  Paul 
meant  the  due  regulation  of  their  lives  as  disciples  of 
Ciirist;  without  any  reference  whatever  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. This  is  not  only  clear  from  the  five  first  verses  of 
the  passage,  but  even  still  more  so  from  the  three  last 
themselv^  ;  which  consist  of  such  figures,  as  St.  Paul 
could  not  have  made  use  of  in  speaking  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. 

He  here  directs  the  Corinthians  to  purge  out  the  old 
leaven  ;  because,  as  Christians,  they  were  wileavened ; 
and  bound  to  keep  the  feast  ^  not  with  old  leaven^  nor  with 
the  leaven  of  evil  and  wickedness  ;  but  with  the  unleaven- 
ed bread  of  sincerity  and  truth.  But  how  could  St.  Paul 
choose  out  this  figure,  above  all  others,  when  speaking 

(c)  From  ver.  1  to  5. 


-ga  APPENDIX.  CnO.V* 

of  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  or  how  can  it  be  appHed  to  that 
rite  ?  As  far  as  relates  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  most  cer- 
tain it  is,  that  Christians  are  not,  what  St.  Paul  here  says 
they  are,  unleavened  ;  since  the  gospel  contains  no  direc- 
tion to  make  use  of  unleavened  bread  in  celebrating  the 
Lord's  Supper  ;  and  it  is  therefore  impossible  that  St. 
Paul  could  have  the  Lord'  Supper  in  his  thoughts,  when 
he  reminded  the  Corinthian  disciples,  that  they  were  un- 
leavened. 

In  fact  the  truth  is  simply  this.  To  make  the  Co- 
rinthians sensible  of  the  necessity  there  was  for  stigmatiz- 
ing the  person,  who  had  been  guilty  of  that  enormity, 
which  the  Apostle  here  reprehends  ;  he  reminds  them  of 
the  mischievous  influence  which  such  an  example,  if  suf- 
fered to  go  unpunished,  would  have  among  them ;  by 
putting  to  them  a  question,  than  which  none  could  be  more 
familial, — Knorw  ye  not  that  a  little  leaven  leaveneth  the 
whole  lump  ?  Having  put  this  question,  he  immediately, 
and  very  naturally,  styles  those,  sins,  in  which  they  had 
been  accustomed  to  allow  themselves  before  their  conver- 
sion to  the  faith  in  Christ,  the  old  leaven  ;  and  directs 
them  to  pui'ge  it  out^  or  to  keep  themselves  pure  from  all 
such  corruptions  for  the  future  ;  in  order  that  they  might 
be  a  netv  lump  ;  as  they  xvere  unleavened  ;  that  is,  in  plain 
terms,  that  they  might  now  be  really  purified  from  all 
those  vices,  in  which  they  had  before  indulged  ;  as  their 
profession  of  the  faith  in  Christ  plainly  required,  and  sup- 
posed them  to  be. 

This  illustration  of  the  point  he  had  to  inculcate  from 
the  nature  of  leaven,  and  the  mention  of  unleavened 
bread,  having  led  St.  Paul's  thoughts  to  the  Jewish  Pas- 
chal Supper,  in  which  the  bread  is  indispensably  requir- 
ed to  be  unleavened  ;  and  tliere  being  a  striking  resem- 
blance between  the  deliverance  of  the  Israelites,  of  which 
that  Supper  was  the  appointed  memorial],  and  the  redemp- 
tion of  mankind  tlirough  Christ  ;  he  goes  on  to  strength- 
en what  he  had  already  said,  by  reminding  them,  that 
Christ  their  passover  had  been  sacrificed  for  them  ;  and  that 
therefore  they  ought  to  keep  the  feast,  vof  xvith  old  leaveJh 


NO.  v.]  APPENDIX*  63 

neither  with  the  leaven  of  evil  and  wickedness,  but  with  the 
unleavened  bread  of  sincerity  and  truth :  As  if  he  had  said, 
in  direct  aiid  plain  terms, — That  Christ,  who  might  very 
aptly  be  styled  the  Passover  of  Christians,  had  been  slain 
for  them  ;  and  therefore,  as  the  Jews,  in  celebrating  their 
deliverance  by  the  Paschal  Supper,  abstained  from  all 
leavened  bread,  in  obedience  to  the  injunction  of  the  law 
of  Moses  J  so  they,  who  professed  themselves  Christians, 
should  as  it  were  celebrate  their  redemption  through 
Christ,  by  abstaining  from  all  sm  and  wickedness,  and 
by  practising  sincere  holiness  and  virtue  ;  agreeably  to  th6 
precepts  of  the  law  of  Christ. 

This  appears  so  manifestly  the  trutli,  and  the  whole 
meaning  of  St.  Paul  in  this  passage,  that  we  may  venture 
to  affirm,  in  exhorting  the  Corinthians  to  keep  the  feast 
tvith  the  unleavened  bread  of  sincerity  and  truth,  it  was 
their  moral  conduct  in  their  whole  life  and  conversation, 
not  their  manner  of  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper,  that 
he  had  his  thoughts  upon  ;  and  consequently,  that  no  in- 
formation concerning  the  nature  and  design  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  can  possibly  be  derived  from  this  passage  ;  since 
in  reality  that  rite  is  not  even  so  much  as  alluded  to  in 
itrdj 

(d)  The  reader  may  see  other  arguments  to  prove  the  'same 
point  with  respect  to  this  passage,  in  the  treatise  intitled,  *'A  plain" 
ttccouut  of  the  Lord's  Supper,"  by  Bishop  Hoadly, 


APPENDIX  [no.  Vr. 


NUMBER   yi. 

ST.  JOHN,  in  the  6th  chapter  of  his  Gospel,  has  re- 
corded a  discourse,  held  by  Jesus  with  the  Jews,  in  the 
synagogue  at  Capernaum,  the  day  after  he  had  fed  five 
thousand  person  s  with  five  barley  loaves  and  two  small  fishes . 
Notwithstanding  that  miracle,  they  required  from  him  a 
sign,  in  order  to  believe  in  him,  adding,  that  God  had  giv- 
en them  bread  from  heaven  ;  in  consequence  of  which, 
alluding  particularly  to  the  miracle  they  hud  mentioned  as 
superior  to  that  he  had  so  lately  worked,  he  expressed 
himsel  in  the  following  very  striking  manner. 

"  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  do^vn  from  heaven  : 
"  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  forever  :  and 
"  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  which  I  will  give 
"  for  the  life  of  the  world.  The  Jews  therefore  strove 
"  amongst  themselves,-  saying,  how  can  this  man  give  us 
**  his  flesh  to  eat  ?  Then  said  Jesus  unto  them,  Verily, 
"  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except. ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the 
"  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you. 
"  Whosoever  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood, 
"  hath  eternal  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 
"  For  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  in- 
"  deed.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood, 
*'  dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him.  As  the  living  Father 
**  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father,  so  he  that  eat- 
"  eth  me,  even  he  shall  live  by  me.  This  is  that  bread, 
"  which  came  down  from  heaven  ;  not  as  your  fathers 
"  did  eat  manna,  and  are  dead  ;  he  that  eateth  of  this 
"  bread  shall  live  forever. '^Cy^ 

These  remai-kablc  expressions,  having  a  very  strong 
resemblance  to  thot;e,  which  Jesus  made  use  of,  when  at 
length  he  instituted  tlie  rite  of  eating  bread  and  drirking 
wine  in  remembrance  of  him,  and  of  his  death  in  particular; 
(on  which  occasion  he  styled  tl,'^  bread  to  be  eaten  his  body^ 
and  the  ivine  to  be  dra;ik  his  blood  ;)  it  has  by  many  been 
supposed,  tliat  in  this  discourse,  he  really,  tiiough  covert- 

(a)  Gospel  of  John,  vi.  5 1*-"5§. 


jrO.  VI.]  APPENDIX.  65 

ly,  alluded  to  that  rite  ;  and  the  expressions  just  quoted 
have  by  them  been  considered  as  so  many  direct  proofs, 
that  the  most  important  spiritual  benefits  ai'e,  by  the  spec- 
ial appointment  of  Jesus,  annexed  to  the  celebration  of  it. 

That  Jesus  might  thus  allude  to  a  rite,  which  he  was  at 
length  certainly  to  institute,  before  the  time  of  its  actual 
institution,  is  what  cannot  be  denied.  But  before  we  ad- 
mit the  supposition  of  any  special  pri^'ileges  as  annexed  to 
the  rite  in  question,  upon  the  strength  of  the  expressions 
he  made  use  of  at  this  time,  two  distinct  points  are  neces- 
sary to  be  proved  ;  the  one,  that  Jesus  certainly  did  al- 
lude to  this  rite  upon  this  occasion  ;  the  other,  that  if  he 
did,  he  must  certainly  have  meant,  by  what  he  said,  to  at- 
tribute to  the  celebration  of  it  such  spiritual  benefits,  as 
have  been  supposed.  If  either  of  these  particulars  is  even 
left  in  doubt,  the  conclusions,  contended  for  from  the  ex- 
pressions of  Jesus  at  this  time,  must  be  wholly  given  up. 
And  the  positive  proof  of  both  these  fundamental  points 
lies  upon  those  who  assume  them,  and  attribute  peculiar 
benefits  to  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  found- 
ed upon  them.  But  the  truth  is,  that  even  of  the  allusion 
itself  we  are  so  far  from  having  any  proof,  that  except  the 
turn  of  the  expressions  themselves,  there  is  not  the  least 
evidence  in  its  support ;  and  the  more  we  seek  for  such 
collateral  proofs  of  it,  as  might  naturally  be  expected  if  it 
were  real,  the  more  doubtful  it  will  be  found. 

The  expressions  Jesus  made  use  of  upon  this  occasion, 
appeared  so  strange  to  his  hearers,  and  gave  them  so  great 
offence,  that,  in  order  to  remove  it,  he  thought  proper  im- 
mediately to  signify  to  them,  that  his  flesh  itself  could  not 
do  them  any  service  ;  and  that  what  he  had  said  of  his 
flesh  must  be  figuratively  understood.  ^6^  But  though 
the  disgust  conceived  at  what  he  had  said,  about  eating 
his  Jieshj  and  drinking  his  bloody  was  so  strong,  that  from 
that  time  many  of  his  disciples  went  back,  and  walked  no 

(b)  "  Doth  this  offend  you  ? — Tt  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth, 
"  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing  :  the  words  that  I  speak  upto  you, 
*"*  tiijey  are  Spirit,  and  they  are  life."     Ver.  61,  63, 

r 


66  APPENDIX.  [no.  VI. 

more  with  him  ;(c)  and  this  desertion  induced  him  to  ex- 
postulate  with  die  Twelve  upon  it ;  yet  neither  then,  nor 
at  any  time  alter  wards,  did  he  give  even  the  Twelve  any 
intimation,  that  in  the  expressions,  at  which  his  hearers  had 
taken  so  great  offence,  he  had  only  alluded  to  a  particular 
rite  he  should  one  day  institute,  and  require  all  who  be- 
lieved in  him,  to  celebrate  ;  and  which  would  then  con- 
vince them,  there  was  no  real  ground  for  the  disgust  they 
had  conceived  at  his  words.  And  when  at  length  he  ac- 
tually instituted  that  rite,  to  the  form  of  which  he  has  here 
been  supposed  to  have  alluded,  in  so  very  remarkable  a 
manner  ;  he  enjoined  the  celebration  of  it,  without  ascrib- 
ing to  the  bread  and  wine  to  be  taken  in  it,  any  of  those 
extraordinary  effects,  which  in  this  discourse  he  attributed 
to  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood  ;  and  without 
informing  the  Apostles,  that  it  Avas  to  the  institution  of 
this  rite  he  had  formerly  alluded,  ^vhen  he  so  much  offend- 
ed the  Jews ;  by  speaking  to  them  of  giving  them  his 
jiesh  to  eat,  and  of  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  eating 
hisjleshy  a?ul  drinking  his  blood. 

Nor  does  it  appear  less  worthy  of  remark,  that  though 
St.  John,  the  only  Evangelist  who  has  recorded  the  dis- 
course in  question,  has  in  other  instances,  of  far  less  im- 
portance than  this  is  supposed  to  have  been,  shewn  him- 
self particularly  careful  in  explaining  what  Jesus  meant ; 
when  his  expressions  are  such  as  his  hearers  either  did  not, 
or  might  not  rightly  understand  -yf^dj  yet  on  this  occa- 
sion, though  so  highly  important  as  it  has  been  imagined, 
he  has  not  thought  it  requisite  to  apprize  us,  that  in  those 
declarations  relating  to  eating  his  flesh  and  driiiking  his 
bloodj  at  which  so  great  offence  was  taken,  Jesus  alluded 
to  the  rite  he  afterwards  instituted  at  his  last  Supper,  and 
to  certain  very  important  spiritual  benefits,  which  were 
to  be  annexed  to  the  celebration  of  it. 

From  this  silence  of  John,  as  well  as  that  of  Jesus  him^ 
self,  witli  respect  to  his  supposed  allusion  in  this  dis- 
course, it  must  ever  remain  a  matter  of  doubt  and  uncer- 

CcJ  John,  vi.  66. 

(dj  See  the  note  on  this  pa^e  at  the  end  of  the  Appendi^tt 


NO.  VI.]  APPENDIX.  67 

tainty,  whether  Jesus  had  in  reaHty  any  such  allusion  in  it. 
And  on  this  account  alone,  were  there  no  other,  we  are 
fully  warranted  in  assuming,  that  no  doctrines  whatever, 
relating  to  die  nature  and  effects  of  the  rite  concerned, 
and  much  less  any  of  so  very  great  importance  as  those 
which  have  been  contended  for,  can  be  safely  founded  on 
any  expressions,  made  use  of  by  Jesus  on  this  occasion. 

But  let  us  suppose,  notwithstandmg  these  considera- 
tions, that  he  might  allude,  in  what  he  now  said,  to  the 
rite  in  question  :  still  we  shall  have  abiuidant  reason  to 
convince  us,  that  he  certainly  did  not  mean  to  ascribe  any 
such  privileges,  as  those,  w  hich  have  been  supposed,  to  it. 

Those  interpreters  indeed,  who  have  taken  it  for  grant- 
ed, that  Jesus  alluded  at  this  time  to  the  rite  he  afterwards 
instituted  at  his  last  Supper,  and  likewise  to  certain  sin- 
gular, spiritual  benefits,  which  were  to  be  positively  an- 
nexed to  the  celebration  of  it,  have  in  general  been  ex- 
tremely cautious  of  pointing  out,  with  any  precision,  what 
those  benefits  are.  They  speak  of  them  however  as  of 
very  great  importance  to  salvation.  And  the  truth  is, 
that  the  expressions,  on  which  they  found  them,  which 
have  been  already  quoted,  are  so  ver\"  strong,  direct,  and 
clear,  that  if  they  were  really  meant  by  Jesus  to  signify 
any  special  benefits  to  be  annexed  to  the  celebration  of 
the  rite  in  question,  they  can  signify  no  less,  than  that  eat- 
ing bread  and  drinking  wine,  as  he  at  his  last  Supper 
should  direct  them  to  be  partaken  of,  under  the  name  of 
his  body  and  blood,  would  be  absolutely  necessary  to  sal- 
vation ;  and  be  attended  with  such  special  communica- 
tions of  divine  grace,  or  grants  of  divine  favor,  as  would 
secure  to  the  participant  an  inheritimce  of  eternal  \ifG,(^eJ 

Was  it  then  possible  for  Jesus,  was  it  consistent  with  the 
moral  doctrines  he  ail  along  taught,  and  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  to  annex  such  privileges  as  tiicse 
to  the  celebration  of  any  rite  ?  Or,  if  tliis  had  been  possi- 
ble, and  if  such  had  been  his  real  meaning  in  this  dis- 
course ;  must  he  not  at  some  time  afterwards  have  C£ius- 

("ej  See  Gosp.  of  John  vi.  54,  55,  56,  57,  in  particular. 


6€  APPENDIX.  [no.  VI. 

ed  this  extraordinary  meaning  to  be  signified  to  the 
Twelve,  so  as  that  tiiey  should  clearly  comprehend  it  ? 
Could  he  make  so  very  singular  an  appointment,  as  this 
would  liavc"  been,  a  part  of  his  religion,  ^vithout  revealiiig 
a  full  imd  exact  explanation  of  it  to  those  persons,  to  whom 
alone  he  meant  to  entrust  the  preaching  of  his  gospel  ? 
And  if  any  such  explanation  of  what  Jesus  had  said  in  the 
instance  before  us,  ever  had  been  imparted  to  the  Apostles 
and  Evangelists,  either  by  Jesus  himself  in  person,  or  by 
inspiration  after  he  was  removed  from  them  ;  must  not 
each  of  those,  who  thought  it  right  to  leave  the  world  an 
authentic  history  of  his  ^\  ords  and  actions,  and  who  have 
made  particular  mention  of  the  rite  he  instituted  as  a  me- 
morial of  his  death,  have  carefully  recorded  this  very  sin- 
gular discourse,  as  well  as  that  necessary  explanation  of 
its  important  meaning,  with  which  they  had  been  made 
acquainted  '? 

Is  this  then  the  case  ?  So  fai'  from  it,  that  neither 
Matdiew,  Mark,  nor  Luke,  have  made  the  least  mention 
of  any  part  of  this  discourse  ;  though  they  have  each  giv- 
en a  paiticular  history  of  the  institution  of  that  rite,  to  the 
nature  and  beneficial  effects  of  which,  it  has  been  sup- 
posed to  have  had  so  very  important  a  reference; — While 
Johji,  on  the  contrary,  the  only  evangelist,  who  at  last 
preserved  this  discourse,  has  neither  taken  any  notice  of 
the  institution  of  the  rite  at  the  last  Supper,/^'  nor  given 
us  any  intimation  that  this  discourse  related  at  all  to  it ; — 
In  or  has  any  one  of  the  Evangelists  left  die  least  hint  of 

(f)  Should  this  silence  of  St.  John,  with  regard  to  the  Lord's 
Suppev,  appeur,  at  first  sight,  to  afford  matter  for  surprize  ;  it  need 
only  be  recollected,  that  at  the  time  when  John  wrote  his  gospel,  this 
rite  had  for  several  years  been  constantly  celebrated  by  all  Chris- 
tians, in  obedience  to  the  injunction  of  Jesus  Christ,  under  the  im- 
mediate direction  of  St.  John  himself,  as  well  as  all  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles.  St.  John  Avriting  his  Gospel  in  these  circumstances,  af- 
ter the  other  three  Evangelists  had  written  theirs ;  and  principally, 
as  ais  Gospel  itself  shows,  with  a  view  to  relate  many  particulars 
■which  they  had  pussed  over  ;  he  made  no  mention  of  the  institu- 
tion at  the  last  Supper,  of  which  they  had  each  given  a  minute  ac- 
count, 


NO.  VI.3  APPENDIX.  69 

any  special  benefits,  of  any  kind,  as  annexed  to  the  cele- 
bration of  it. 

Had  the  meaning  of  Jesus,  at  this  time,  been  such  as  it 
has  by  many  been  supposed,  it  is  utterly  inconceivable, 
either  that  the  three  Evangelists,  who  have  carefully  re- 
corded the  institution  of  the  rite  at  the  last  Supper,  could 
have  omitted  to  acquaint  us  with  the  special  benefits  an- 
nexed to  it ;  by  preserving  likewise  the  only  discourse  of 
Jesus,  in  which  he  had  ever  alluded  to  them,  and  at  the 
same  time  explaining  its  real  meaning  ; — Or  that  John, 
when  he  thought  fit  to  relate  this  discourse,  and  the  great 
offence  taken  at  it,  in  consequence  of  its  being  misunder- 
stood ;  could  have  omitted  to  add  an  explanation  of  the 
true  meaning  of  Jesus  in  it,  and  of  those  special  benefits, 
to  which  it  alluded,  as  positively  annexed  to  the  rite  he 
afterwaixls  instituted  at  his  last  Supper. 

And  the  same  conclusion,  which  we  are  obliged  to 
draw  from  this  remarkable  silence  of  all  the  Evangelists, 
is  no  less  strongly  confirmed  by  that  of  St.  Paul. 

Had  it  been  possible  for  any  such  special  benefits  to 
have  been  annexed  to  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, and  had  Jesus  really  meant  to  ascribe  them  to  it, 
either  on  this  occasion,  or  any  other  ;  we  should  certainly 
have  found  St.  Paul  insisting  upon  them,  when  reproving 
the  Corinthians  for  some  great  improprieties,  which  they 
were  become  guilty  of,  at  the  time  of  being  met  together 
to  celebrate  it-fgj  Any  peculiar  spiritual  benefits  cic- 
companying  it,  but  more  especially  of  so  important  a  na- 
ture as  those  which  have  been  supposed,  would  certainly 
have  afforded  the  Apostle  the  strongest,  as  well  as  thq 
most  obvious  of  all  arguments,  for  a  perfectly  serious  be- 
haviour at  the  celebration  of  it.  When  therefore  Ave  lind 
St.  Paul,  though  sharply  reproving  the  Corinthians  for  a 
very  different  conduct,  not  making  the  least  mention  of 
any  special  benefits  whatever  as  annexed  to  this  rite  ;  but 
insisting  merely  on  the  command  of  Jesus  at  the  institu- 
tion, to  prove  the  duty  of  celebrating  it  \(^hj  and  pointing 

rgj  1  Cor.  xi.  20,  &c.     C^J  1  Cor.  xi.  23—25. 


9b  APPENDIX.  NO.  VI. 

out  to  them  nothing  more  to  shew  its  nature  and  effects, 
than  that,  as  often  as  they  did  celebrate  it^  they  shewed  forth 
the  Lord'^s  death  till  he  should  come  ;(ij  we  have  before 
us,  if  I  am  not  exceedingly  deceived,  an  absolutely  deci- 
sive proof,  that  the  great  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  knew  of 
no  special  benefits  of  any  kind  annexed  to  the  celebration 
of  it  ;  and  consequently,  that  neither  in  the  discourse  un- 
der consideration,  nor  in  any  other,  could  Jesus  mean  to 
allude  to  any. 

Without  having  recourse,  therefore,  to  any  particular 
method  of  interpreting  the  discourse  of  our  Lord  under 
consideration,  it  appears,  I  imagine,  abundantly  plain  ;  in 
the  first  place,  that  the  supposed  allusion  of  Jesus  in  this 
discourse,  to  the  rite  he  instituted  at  his  last  Supper,  is  at 
all  events  doubtful,  and  absolutely  incapable  of  being  so 
clearly  proved,  as  to  serve  for  the  foundation  of  any  doc- 
trine ;— f-And  in  the  next,  tliat  even  supposing  he  did  al- 
lude at  this  time  to  it,  he  certainly  did  not  mean,  by  any 
thing  he  now  said,  to  attribute  any  special  privileges  to 
the  celebration  of  it ; — And  on  the  whole  therefore,  that 
no  doctrine  whatever,  relating  to  the  nature  and  effects  of 
this  rite,  can  be  authentically  deduced  from  any  thing 
said  by  Jesus  upon  this  occasion.  ^/^^ 

(i)  1  Cor.  xi.  26. 

(k)  Very  soon  after  the  publication  of  the  former  edition  of  this 
treatise,  it  was  urged,  as  an  objection  to  it,  that  no  notice  had  been 
taken  of  that  discourse  of  our  Loi'd,  which  has  now  been  consider- 
ed. I  therefore  determined  upon  a  new  edition  in  order  to  consid- 
er it.  I  was  likewise  induced  to  prepare  one  of  the  arguments  alone, 
to  answer  the  purpose  of  a  Practical  Inquiry.  And  intending  to 
publish  both  at  the  same  time,  I  referred  in  a  note  in  the  Argument 
alone,  to  this  edition  of  the  treatise  at  large,  as  having  considered 
the  6th  chapter  of  St.  John.  Determining  afterwards  to  postpone 
this  edition  for  some  little  time,  I  inadvertently  published  the  Prac- 
tical Inquiry  by  itself;  without  reflecting  upon  the  reference  it 
contained  to  this  edition,  not  then  published,  for  the  discussion  of  a 
particular  point,  in  relation  to  which  nothing  was  to  be  found  in  the 
first  edition.  This  impropriety  is  now  removed  by  the  present 
publication  ;  but  having  been  publicly  called  upon  to  account  for  it, 
it  seems  requisite  to  iriform  the  reader  by  what  means  it  arose. 


iro.  VII.3  APPENDi;?.  731 

NUMBER   Vn,(^aJ 

TO  preclude  the  possibility  of  misrepresenting  Dr. 
Cudvvorth's  argument  concerning  the  nature  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  ;  founded  on  what  St.  Paul  has  said  relating  to  it, 
in  the  1st  Ep.  to  the  Corinthians,  ch.  x.  14,  &c.  and  that 
we  may  have  it  completely  before  us,  it  will  be  proper  ta 
insert  it  at  length. 

A  Discourse  canceming  the  true  notion  of  tlie  IjOrd^s 
Supper,  chapter  iv. 

"  But  lest  we  should  seem  to  set  up  fancies  of  our  own, 
and  then  sport  with  them,  we  come  now  to  demonstrate 
and  evince,  that  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  the  proper  notion 
of  it,  is  Epulum  ex  Oblatis,  or,  A  Feast  upon  Sacrifice  ; 
in  the  same  manner  with  the  feasts  upon  the  Jewish  sac- 
rifices under  the  law,  and  the  feasts  upon  f/JwAoSuTiX,  things 
oftered  to  idols,  among  the  heathens.  And  that  from  a 
place  of  scripture,  where  all  these  shall  be  compared  to- 
gether, and  made  exactly/  paiallels  to  one  another." 
1st.  Ep.  Cor.  ch.  X. 

Ver.  14.  Wherefore,  my  dearly  beloved,  flee  from  idolatry. 

15.  I  speak  as  to  wise  men,  judge  ye  what  I  say. 

16  The  cup  of  blessing,  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  commun- 
ion of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread,  which  we  break,  is  it  not 
the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ^fbj 

18.  Behold  Israel  after  the  flesh  ;  are  not  they,  which  eat  of  the 
sacrifices,  partakers  of  the  altar  ? 

20.  Now  I  say,  the  things,  which  the  Gentiles  sacrifice,  they  sac- 
rifice to  devils,  and  not  to  God  :  and  I  would  not  that  ye  should 
have  fellowship  with  devils. 

21.  Ye  cannot  drink  of  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the  cup  of  dev- 
ils ;  ye  cannot  be  partakers  of  the  Lord's  table,  and  the  table  of 
devils. 

"  Where  the  apostle's  scope  being  to  convince  the  Co-. 
rinthianS  of  the  unlawfulness  of  eating  things  sacrificed  to 

fa  J  See  page  51. 

fbj  It  is  remarkable  that  Cudworth  leaves  out  ver.  17  and  19  ; 
as  if  they  embarrassed  the  argument  St,  Paul  is  here  upon. 


72  APPENDIX  [no.  VII. 

idols,  he  doth  it  in  this  manner  ; — Shewing,  that  though 
an  idol  were  truly  nothing,  and  things  sacrificed  to  idols 
physically  nothing,  as  different  from  other  meats  ;  as  it 
seems  they  argued,  and  St.  Paul  confesses,  ver.  19  ;  yet 
morally  and  circumstantially,  to  eat  of  things  sacrificed  to 
idols,  in  the  idol's  temple,  was  to  consent  with  the  sacri- 
fices, and  be  guilty  of  them." 

"  Which  he  doth  illustrate,  Firsts  from  a  parallel  rite 
in  the  Christian  religion,  where  the  eating  and  drinking  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  offered  up  to  God  upon  the 
cross  for  us,  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  a  real  communica'- 
tion  in  his  death  and  sacrifice  : — Ver.  16. — The  cup  of 
blessings  which  we  bless^  is  it  not  the  communimi  of  the 
blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread,  which  we  break ^  is  it  ?iot  the 
communion  oj  the  body  of  Christ  /"' 

"  Secondly,  from  another  parallel  of  the  same  rite 
among  the  Jews  ;  where  always,  they  that  ate  of  the  sac- 
rifices were  accounted  partakers  of  the  altar  ;  that  is,  of 
the  sacrifices  offered  up  upon  the  altar  :  Ver.  18. — Be- 
hold Israel  after  the  flesh  ;  are  not  thei/,  which  eat  of  the 
sacrifces,  partakers  of  the  altar  ? — In  veteri  I-«ege,  qui- 
cunque  admittebantur  ad  edendum  de  hostiis  oblatis,  cen- 
sebantur  ipsius  sacrificii,  tanquam  pro  ipsis  oblati,  fieri 
participes,  et  per  illud  sanctificari ;  as  a  late  commenta- 
tor fully  expresses  it." 

"  Therefore,  as  to  eat  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  is  to  be  made  partaker  of  liis  sacrifice 
offered  up  to  God  for  us  ; — as  to  eat  of  the  Je\vish  sacri- 
fices under  the  law,  was  to  partake  in  the  legal  sacrifices 
themselves  ; — So  to  eat  of  things  offered  up  in  sacrifice 
to  idols,  was  to  be  made  paitakers  of  the  idol  sacrifices ; 
and  therefore  was  unlawful." 

*'  For,  the  things,  rvhich  the  Gentiles  sacriflce,  they  sacri- 
fice to  devils  :  but  Christ's  body  and  blood  were  offered 
up  in  sacrifice  unto  God  ;  and  therefore  they  could  not 
paitake  of  both  together ;  the  sacrifice  of  the  true  God, 
and  the  sacrifice  of  devils  : — \e  ca?mot  drink  of  the  cup  of 
the  Lord,  and  the  cup  of  devils  ;  ye  cannot  be  partakei's  of 
the  Lordh  table,  and  the  table  of  devils, — St.  Paul's  argii- 


NO.  VII.]  APPENDIX.  75 

ment  here  must  needs  suppose  2i  perfect  analogy  between 
these  three,  and  that  they  are  all  parallels  to  one  another, 
or  else  it  hath  )io  strength.  Wherefore,  I  conclude  from 
hence, — That  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  same  among 
Christians,  in  respect  of  the  Christian  sacrifice,  that  among 
the  Jews  the  feasts  upon  the  legal  sacrifices  were,  and 
among  the  Gentiles  the  feasts  upon  tlie  idol  sacrifices ; 
and  therefore,  Epulum  sacrificiale,  or,  Epulum  ex  Obla- 
tis. — 'Oxf^  ih&oi  5£/^«." 

Thus  reasons  Dr.  Cudworth.  To  enable  ourselves  to 
determine  satisfactorily,  whether  his  reasoning  is  really 
conclusive,  the  best  method  will  be,  to  consider  first,  his 
explanation  of  St.  Paul's  argument ;  and  then  the  con- 
clusion, which  he  himself  draws  from  that  explanation  of  it. 

In  the  first  place  he  lays  it  down,  tliat  the  point  St. 
Paul  here  intends  to  prove  is.  That  going  to  the  pagan 
feasts  upon  sacrifice  was  "  morally  and  circumstantially 
to  consent  with  the  sacrifices,  and  be  guilty  of  them." 

And  then,  That  in  order  to  prove  this  point,  St.  Paul 
alledges  these  two  considerations  :  viz. 

That,  among  Christians,  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per is  "  A  real  communication  in  his  death  and  sacri- 
fice :"  by  which  Cudworth  means,  in  the  effects,  or  ben- 
efits, of  his  death  and  sacrifice  :  And, 

That  among  the  Jews,  all  who  ate  of  the  sacrifices,, 
were  accounted  partakers  of  the  effects,  or  benefits,  of 
their  sacrifices. 

He  says  first,  St.  Paul's  design  here  is,  to  prove,  that 
eating  at  the  pagan  idol  feasts  was  "  morally  and  circum- 
"  stantially  to  consent  with  the  sacrifices,  and  be  guilty  of 
"  tliem  :"  That  is,  for  I  know  not  what  other  meaning 
to  give  the  words,  That  as  being  seen  at  the  idoi  feasts 
was  a  circumstance,  from  which  every  one  was  morally 
sure  it  would  be  concluded  by  some,  who  saw  him  there, 
that  he  was  an  idolater  ;  so  every  one,  who  notwithstand- 
ing this,  fi-equented  idol  feasts,  must  be  supposed  un- 
concerned at  its  being  thought  he  was  an  idolater  ;  and 
consequently  must  be  considered  as  virtually  guilty  of  an 
act  of  idolatry  before  those,  who  sav/  him  there. 


74  APPENDIX.  fwo.  vir. 

This  then  is  the  point,  according  to  Cudworth  himself, 
which  St.  Paul  here  intended  to  prove  ;  and  in  this  we 
are  perfectly  agreed :  let  us  now  consider  the  two  reasons, 
which,  according  to  his  representation  of  them,  St.  Paul 
alledges  to  prove  it. 

The  first  is,  That  among  Christians,  partaking  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  "  is  a  real  communication  in  his  death 
"  and  sacrifice  :"  and  that  is,  as  Cudworth  means,  in  the 
effects  or  benefits  of  his  death  and  sacrifice. 

But  how  could  this  i)articular  consideration  answer  St. 
Paul's  purpose  in  this  argument,  as  it  has  just  been  ex- 
plained ? 

To  prove,  that  partaking  of  idol  feasts  was  being  vir- 
tually guilty  of  an  act  of  idolatry,  and  consequentl)  a  vir- 
tual profession  of  idolatry' ;  how  could  St.  Paul  possibly 
alledge,  that  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  among  Chris- 
tians was  (not,  virtually  joining  hi  an  act  of  ChrisLian  wor- 
ship, and  consequently  a  virtual  profession  of  Christianity  ; 
— but)  "  a  real  communication  in  Christ's  death  and 
sacrifice  ;"  i.  e.  in  the  effects  or  benefits  of  it  ?  For  St. 
Paul  to  have  alledged  this  consideration,  to  prove  the  point 
just  mentioned,  would  have  been  urging  what  was  quite 
foreign  to  his  purpose,  and  manifestly  useless  and  improp- 
er. 

To  prove  the  point,  which  k  is  agreed  he  meant  to 
prove,  the  only  argument  he  could  draw  from  what  ob- 
tained among  the  Christians  must  have  been  this  : — That 
as,  among  Christians,  partaking  cf  bread  and  wine  at  the 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  apparently  partaking 
of  them  in  compliance  with  the  institution  of  Christ,  and 
assenting  to  the  Christian  rites,  and  therefore  a  virtual  pro- 
fession of  Christianity ; — so  partaking  of  the  idol  feasts 
with  idolaters,  must  be  apparently  consenting  to,  and  be- 
ing guilty  of,  the  idol  sacrifices. ;  and  consequently  a  vir- 
tual profession  of  idolatry. 

Thus  inteq:)reted,  St.  Paul's  argument,  drawn  from 
what  obtained  among  Christians,  is  natural,  obvious,  and 
indisputably  conclusive  ;  nor  could  he  possibly  alledge 
any  thing  more  plain,  or  more  directly  to  the  purpose,  to 


so.  VII.]  APPENDIX.  75 

prove  the  point  he  certainly  had  in  vieyv.  Whereas,  if  we 
interpret  it  as  Cudworth  does,  it  necessarily  becomes  im- 
proper, and  utterly  inconclusive. 

The  second  argument  which  St.  Paul  urges,  is  drawn 
from  what  obtained  among  the  Jews  : — Behold  Israel  af- 
ter the  Jiesh  ;  are  not  they^  which  eat  of  the  sacrifices^  par- 
takers qftlie  altar  ? — And  according  to  Cudworth  his 
meaning  in  this  question  is, — Among  the  Jewsfare  not  all, 
who  eat  of  the  legal  sacrifices,  accounted  partakers  of  the 
effects,  or  benefits,  of  those  sacrifices  ? 

But  here  it  is  evidently  just  as  foreign  to  the  point  St. 
Paul  wanted  to  prove  ;  (that  frequenting  idol  feasts  was 
being  virtually  guilty  of  an  open  profession  of  idolatry  ;) 
to  alledge,  that  eating  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices  was  account- 
ed a  real  participation  in  the  effects,  or  benefits,  of  those 
sacrifices  ;  as  it  was  to  allege,  in  the  former  instance, 
That  partaking  of  die  Lord's  Supper  was  a  real  communi- 
cation in  the  effects  of  Christ's  death. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  evidently  as  pertinent  to  St. 
Paul's  design,  to  urge,  That  among  the  Jews  frequenting 
the  Jewish  feasts  upon  sacrifice  was  virtually  assenting  to 
those  sacrifices,  and  consequently  a  viitual  profession  of 
Judaism  ;  as,  to  urge  from  the  Christian,  That  partaking 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  virtually  assenting  to  the  Chiis- 
tian  rites  ;  and  consequently,  a  virtual  profession  of  Chrisr 
tianity. 

For  the  same  reasons  therefore,  which  oblige  us  to  re- 
ject Cud  worth's  interpretation  of  the  argument  drawn  by» 
St.  Paul  from  the  Christians,  we  must  likewise  reject  his 
similar  interpretation  of  the  similar  argument  drawn  from 
the  Jews.  And  the  meaning  of  this  question  put  by  the 
vc^ostXe.^Behold  Israel  after  the  flesh;  are  not  they,  -which 
eat  of  the  sacrifices,  partakers  of  the  altar  ?  can  be '  no 
other  than  this  ;  Is  not  eating  of  the  Jevvish  legal  sacrifices 
with  the  Jews,  virtually  giving  assent  to  those  sacrifices  ; 
and  consequently  a  virtual  professio'^  ^i  Judaism  ? 

Thus,  it  is  presumed,  we  see  clearly,  that  Cudworth's 
interpretation  of  St.  Paul's  two  premises  is  founded  on  a 
jmistake  ;  we  must  now  examine  his  representation  of  the 


76  APPENDIX.  [no.  VII. 

manner,  in  \vhich  St.  Paul  argues  from  them  ;  which,  ac- 
cording to  him,  is  as  follows. 

"  Therefore, — As  to  eat  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  to  be  made  partaker  of  his  sacri- 
fice offered  up  to  God  for  us  ; — As  to  eat  of  the  Jewish 
sacrifices  under  the  law,  was  to  partake  of  the  legal  sacri- 
fices themselves  ; — so  to  eat  of  things  offered  up  in  sacri- 
fice to  idols,  is  to  be  made  partakers  ofthe  idol  sacrifices; 
and  therefore  is  unlawful." 

Here  first  it  is  absolutely  necessar}'  to  observe,  that  this 
stating  of  St.  Paul's  argument  requires  to  have  the  mean- 
ing of  each  of  its  propositions  precisely  ascertained,  to  en- 
able us  to  determine  whether  the  argument  it  contains  is 
conclusive  or  not  :  for  unless  the  identical  tenns,  in 
which  it  is  drawn  up,  ("  being  made  partakers  of  Christ's 
*'  sacrifice,"  and  "  partaking  in  the  legal  sacrifices,"  and 
"  being  made  partakers  of  the  idol  sacrifices,"),  are  used 
to  express  exactly  the  same  meaning  in  each  of  the  prem- 
ises and  the  conclusion  ;  the  argument  must  necessarily 
prove  inconclusive ;  or,  in  reality,  no  argument  at  all ; 
though  by  means  of  having  its  premises  and  conclusion  ex^ 
pressed  in  tlie  same  terms,  it  wears  at  first  sight  the  ap- 
pearance of  complete  demonstration. 

To  discover  therefore  with  certainty  whether  St.  Paul's 
argument,  as  it  is  here  stated  by  Cudworth,  is  really,  as 
well  as  apparently,  conclusive,  we  must  strike  out  the 
identical  terms  themselves,  in  which  the  premises  and  con- 
clusion are  expressed  ;  and  substitute  in  their  stead  that 
precise  meaning,  which  Cudworth  here  designed  to  ex- 
press by  them.  And  when  we  have  done  this,  his  state 
of  St.  Paul's  argument,  as  appears  from  what  he  says  in 
his  three  preceding  paragraphs,  will  stand  thus  : — 

**  Therefore, 

"  As  to  eat  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's 
"  Supper,  is  a  real  communication  in  Ms  death  and  sacri- 
"  fice  ;"  that  is,  in  the  effects  or  benefits  of  it ; — 

"  As  to  eat  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices  under  the  law  is  to 
share  in  the  effects  or  benefits  of  those  sacrifices ;"  per  ilia 
sanctificari  ;-^ 


so.  VII.]  APPENDIX.  77 

"  So,  to  eat  of  things  offered  up  in  sacrifice  to  idols  is," 
(what  ?  not,  "  to  share  iu  the  effects  of  those  idol  sacrific- 
es ;"  the  only  conclusion  that  can  possibly  be  drawn  from 
these  premises ;  but)  "  to  consent  with  those  sacrifices, 
and  be  guilty  of  them  :"  that  is,  nothing  more  tlian  to  be 
virtuali)^  guilty  of  an  act  of  idolatry,  and  therefore,  to  be 
virtually  a  professed  idolater. 

By  thus  substituting  in  the  room  of  the  identical  terms, 
themselves  in  each  proposition,  that  meaning,  in  which 
Cudworth  uses  them  in  the  two  premises,  and  that  very 
different  meaning,  in  which  he  uses  them  in  the  conclu- 
sion ;  we  see  at  once,  that  the  conclusion  by  no  means  fol- 
lows from  the  preniises,  as  he  understood  them  ;  and  in 
fact  has  no  depeiidence  upon  them  ;  and  consequently, 
that  his  interpretation  of  St.  Paul's  method  of  arguing, 
from  what  obtained  among  the  Christians  and  the  Jews, 
must  be  false  ;  because  it  renders  the  apostle's  conclusion 
not  pertinent,  and  his  method  of  reasoning  improper. 

In  reality,  St.  Paul's  own  ai-gument,  unobscured  by  any- 
thing foisted  into  it,  is  as  simple  and  plain  as  possible,  and 
is  nothing  more  than  this  : — 

As,  to  eat  bread  and  drink  wine  with  Chi'istians,  when 
tliey  professedly  eat  the  one,  and  drink  the  other,  as  the 
appointed  memorials  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  is 
virtually  eating  and  drinking  with  the  same  apparent  de- 
sign that  they  professedly  eat  and  drink  with  ;  and  con- 
sequendy,  is  a  virtual,  apparent  profession  of  Christianity ; 
And, 

As,  to  eat  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices  with  the  Jews,  is  for 
the  same  reasons,  a  virtual,  appaient  profession  of  Judaism ; 

So,  to  eat  of  idol  sacrifices  with  professed  idolaters,  is, 
for  the  same  reasons  likewise,  a  virtual,  apparent  profes-* 
sion  of  idolatry.     Wherefore, 

Since  as  I  siu.d,(^cj  it  is  your  duty  as  Christians  to  flee 
Jrom  idolatry  \  and  of  course  from  all  apparent  professions 
of  idolatry  ;  it   must  of  necessity  be  improper  in  you  aa 
Christians  to  frequent  idol  feasts.  Q.  E.  D. 

We  may  now,  I  imagine,  cleai'ly  see  tiie  falsehood  of 

(c)  1  Cor.  s.  14. 


7S  APPENDIX.  [no.  VII. 

that  fundamental  principle,  from  which  Cudworth  draws 
his  own  conclusion,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  Epulum 
sacrificiale,  or  Epulum  ex  oblatis. 

He  sa.ys,fdj  "  St.  Paul's  argument  here  must  needs 
*'  suppose  a.  perfect  analogy  between  these  tliree  actions, 
"  and  that  they  are  all  parallels,  fej  exact  parallels  to  one 
"  another  ;  or  else  it  hath  no  strength." 

Answer. 

1st,  St.  Paul's  argument  must  needs  suppose  such  an 
analog)'  between  the  three  actions  concerned,  and  that 
they  are  parallel  to  each  other  so  far,  as  is  necessary  to 
make  his  argument  drawn  from  comparmg-  them  togeth- 
er really  conclusive  and  just ;  but  it  does  not  suppose  the 
analogy  between  them  to  extend  further,  or  that  they  are 
parallels  to  each  other  in  any  gi*eater  degree,  than  tliis  may 
require. 

2dly,  St.  Paul's  argument  is  made  really  conclusive  and 
just,  merely  by  granting,  what  cannot  be  denied,  that  the 
three  actions  mentioned  in  it  agree  in  this  one  particular 
only.  That  each  is  a  virtual,  apparent  profession  of  that 
religion,  to  which  it  respectively  belongs  ;  Avidiout  taking 
it  at  all  into  consideration,  whether  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
exacdy  the  same  sort  of  rite  in  the  Christian  religion,  that 
the  Jewish  and  idol  feasts  upon  sacrifice  in  the  Jewish  and 
Pugan  religions ;  that  is,  without  considering  at  all 'wheth- 
er the  Lord's  Supper  is  specifically  Epulum  sacrificiale, 
or  Epulum  ex  oblatis,  or  not.     Therefore, 

3dly,  St.  Paul's  argument  does  not  suppose  a  perfect 
analogy  between  the  specific  natures  of  die  three  actions 
in  question  :  It  does  not  suppose  them  to  be  exact  paral- 
lels ;  or  parallels  to  each  other  so  far,  as  to  afford  any 
ground  whatever  for  concluding,  "that  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
"  the  same  among  Christians,  in  respect  of  the  Christian 
"  sacrifice,  that  among  the  Jews  the  feasts  upon  the  legal 
"  sacrifices  were,  and  among  the  Gentiles  the  feasts  upon 
*'  the  idol  sacrifices  ;"  That  is,  in  other  words,  St.  Paul's 
argument  docs  not  afford  any  ground  whatever  for  con- 

(d)  See  the  passage  in  page  7 1 .     fe)  See  the  same  page.. 


JtO,  VII.]  APPENDIX.  ■?$ 

eluding,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  specifically  Epulum 
sacrificiale,  or  Epulum  ex  oblatis.     Q.  ii.  Ij.ffJ 

From  what  has  now  been  urged,  it  must,  it  is  hoped, 
be  clearly  seen,  that  the  sense  in  which  Cudworth  has  in- 
terpreted the  principles,  upon  which  St.  Paul  argues,  in 
the  passage  on  which  he  has  founded  his  own  notion  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  is  by  no  means  the  true  sense  of  St. 
Paul  ;  and  consequently,  that  the  peculiar  opinion  of  the 
nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  he  has  founded  whol- 
ly upon  this  mistaken  interpretation  of  the  apostle,  is  abso- 
lutely destitute  of  all  foundation.  But  lest  any  confused 
suspicion  should  still  remain,  that  his  notion  of  the  nature 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  may  yet  be  true,  notwithstanding  he 
has  been  mistaken  in  founding  it  on  this  passage  of  St. 
Paul  ;  it  will  not  perhaps  be  without  its  use  to  prove,  a 
priori,  if  we  are  able  to  do  it,  that  Dr.  Cudworth's  notion 
of  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper  must  of  necessity  be 
false  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  on  account  of  the  obvious 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Christian  religion,  it  is  ab- 
solutely impossible,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  can  be  ''  the 
same  among  Cliiistians  in  respect  to  the  Christian  sacri- 
fice, that  among  the  Jews  tlie  feasts  upon  the  legal  sacrific- 
es were,  and  among  the  Gentiles  the  feasts  upon  the  ido 
sacrifices."  And  this  shall  be  the  object  of  the  remaining 
article  of  this  Appendix. 

CfJ  If  so  great  a  man  as  Cudworth  shall  be  found  to  have  been  mis- 
taken in  a  point,  on  ivhich  he  flattered  himself  with  having  arrived 
at  demonstration,  it  certainly  behoves  any  one,  who  attempts  to 
point  out  his  mistakes,  to  remember  well  his  ovm  liableness  to  er- 
ror. But  whether  we  have  succeeded  in  detecting  the  particular 
fallacies  of  Cudworth's  argument-  or  not,  it  must  not  be  forgotten, 
that  if  the  train  of  reasoning,  which  has  been  pursued  in  the  pre- 
ceding treatise  itself,  be  just,  certain  it  is,  that  Dr.  I  udworth's  argu- 
ment must  be  fallacious,  and  his  notion  of  the  Lord's  Supper  un- 
true. 

li  the  reader  is  desirous  of  seeing  such  arguments,  as  may  be 
drawn  from  the  nature  of  the  distinct  sorts  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices,' 
to  prove  that  the  Lord's  Supper  cannot  be  a  feast  upon  sacrifice  ; 
he  may  consult  "  A  discourse  on  the  nature  and  end  of  the  Lord's. 
"  Supper,  wherein  it  is  shewn  th&t  it  neither  is,  nor  can  be^  a  feast 
"  on  the  sacrifice.  Published  bv  J.  Payne,  Pater-Noster  Row. 
1758. 


APPENBIX.  [no.VIII. 


NUMBER  VIII. 

IN  every  religion,  the  true  nature  and  design  of  every 
instituted  rite  must  necessarily  be  confonnable  to,  and 
perfectly  consistent  with,  the  great  fimdamental  principles 
of  the  religion  itself. 

In  religions  therefore,  whose  fundamental  principles 
are  in  any  respect  different,  all  rites,  dependent  in  any  de- 
gree upon  those  principles,  must  be  proportionally  differ- 
ent from  each  other  in  their  true  nature  and  design. 

If  then  the  certain,  acknowledged  nature  and  design  of 
the  Jewish  and  pagan  feasts  upon  sacrifice  was,  in  any 
degree,  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  religion  instituted  by  Christ ;  it  will  unavoidably  fol- 
low, that  the  true  nature  and  design  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
must  be  different  from,  and  cannot  be  the  same  with,  the 
acknowledged  nature  and  design  of  the  Jewish  and  pagan 
feasts  upon  sacrifice  \fa)  that  is,  the  Lord's  Supper  can- 
not be  specifically  a  feast  upon  sacrifice. 

To  determine  the  point,  therefore,  nodiing  more  is  ne- 
cessary, than  to  compai'e  the  acknowledged  nature  and  de- 
sign of  the  Jewish  and  pagan  feasts  upon  sacrifice,  with 
the  fundamental  principles  of  the  religion  instituted  by 
Jesus. 

In  the  Jewish  dispensation  many  particular  sacrifices 
were  appointed  to  be  offered  up,  on  account  of  particular 
legal  offences  ;  and  all  these  sacrifices  were  declared,  and 
understood,  to  be  expiations  of  those  particular  offences  ; 
or,  in  other  words,  the  appointed  legal  means  of  obtaining 

(a)  To  prevent  misapprehension,  it  may  be  proper  to  obscFve, 
that  what  is  here  said  with  respect  to  the  Jewish  feasts  upon  sacri- 
fice, is  not  in  any  degree  applicable  to  the  Passover  or  Paschal  Sup- 
per. For,  not  to  inquire  whether  the  Passover  was  in  any  sense  a 
aaei'ifice,  most  evident  it  is,  that  it  was  not  an  expiatory  saci'ifice. 
Instead  of  bein;^  appointed  for  an  expiation  of  any  offences,  it  was 
expressly  and  solely  appointed  for  a  commemoration  of  a  blessing  ; 
(as  see  No.  II  of  this  Appendix)  and  was  so  far  a  rite  of  exactly  the 
sanienatyi'e  in  the  Jewi^.  religion,  that  the  Eucharist  isip,  the  Chris- 
tian. 


NO.  VIII.]  APPENDIX.  81 

forgiv^eness  and  remission  of  the  punishment  incurred  on 
their  account. 

In  the  pagan  religions  Ukewise,  particular  sacrifices 
were  offered  up  on  account  of  particular  offences  ;  and 
were  designed  for,  and  regarded  as  expiations  of  those 
particular  offences,  and  the  immediate  means  of  obtaining 
forgiveness  from  the  gods. 

Hence  in  the  Jewish  dispensation,  the  sacrificers,  in 
all  these  cases,  did  really  expiate  their  offences  against  the 
law  by  offering  up  the  sacrifices  appointed  in  the  law  for 
them  ;  and  in  the  pagan  religions  were  understood  to  do 
the  same.  And  as  those  who  partook  of  the  sacrificial 
feasts,  were  understood,  in  both,  to  partake  of  all  the  ben- 
efits of  the  sacrifices  themselves  ;  hence  partaking  of 
these  feasts  was  considered,  in  each  religion  respectively, 
as  an  expiation  of  those  offences,  for  which  the  sacrifices 
were  offered  up,  and  the  formal  cause  of  their  being  for- 
given. ^^^^ 

Such  was  the  acknowledged  nature  and  end  of  the  Jew- 
ish and  pagan  feasts  upon  sacrifice.  And  from  hence  it 
immediately  follows,  that  if  the  Lord's  Supper  is  specif- 
ically a  feast  upon  sacrifice  ;  if  "  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
the  same  among  Christians  in  respect  to  the  Christian 
sacrifice,  that  among  the  Jews  the  feasts  upon  the  legal  sac- 
rifices were  ;  and  among  the  Gentiles  the  feasts  upon  the 
idol  sacrifices  ;" — Then  our  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, our  joining  in  this  feast  upon  his  sacrifice,  this  very 
action  itself,  must  be  an  immediate  atonement  for  our 
sins  ;  and  the  appointed  Christian  means,  or  formal  cause, 
of  their  being  forgiven,  under  the  law  of  Christ ;  since 
Jesus  himself  expressly  declared,  at  the  very  time  of  in- 
stituting this  rite,  tliat  his  blood  would  be  shed  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins. 

But  this  consequence,  which  must  unavoidably  be  ad- 
mitted, if  the  Lord's  Supper  is  specifically  a  feast  upon 

(b)  Thus  is  the  nature  of  the  Jewish  sacrificial  feasts  described 
by  the  commentator,  whom  Cudworth  quotes  for  the  propriety  of 
the  description.  See  the  passage  quoted  in  page  72  of  this  Ap» 
nendix. 


J^  APPENDIX.  [no.  VIII. 

sacrifice,  is,  in  the  first  place,  absolutely  unauthorised  by 
the  form  and  circumstances  of  the  institution  ;  and,  in 
the  next,  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  religion  of  Christ. 

It  is  absolutely  unauthorized,  because,  as  we  have  al- 
ready seen,  from  an  accurate  examination  of  all  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  institution,  and  every  passage  relating 
to  it ;  it  is  no  where  declared,  or  even  so  much  as  hinted, 
throughout  the  New  Testament,  that  the  celebi-ation  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  was  appointed  by  Jesus,  to  be  itself  an 
atonement  for,  or  formal  cause  of  the  forgiveness  of,  sin  j 
as  the  Jewish  expiatory  sacrifices  were  to  be  declared  un- 
der the  la^v,  and  the  heathen  sacrifices  were  understood  to 
be  among  the  pagans. 

And  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  \vith  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  religion  of  Christ ;  because  it  is  not  on- 
ly certain,  that  there  is  not  any  action  whatever  appointed 
by  the  gospel,  for  us  to  perform,  under  the  notion  of  an 
expiation  of,  or  atonement  for,  or  formal  cause  of  the  for- 
giveness of,  sin  ;  but  equally  certain,  that  in  the  gospel  all 
forgiveness  of  sin  is  expressly  attributed,  and  ^vholly  con- 
fined to  the  merits  and  mediation  of  Christ,  through  the 
gracious  appointment  of  God. 

And  with  respect  to  the  Lord's  Supper  in  particular, 
forgiveness  of  sin,  as  we  have  fully  seen,  is  no  more  sig- 
nified in  the  gospel  to  be  the  appointed  consequence  of 
our  celel)rating  this  rite,  which  it  must  have  been,  if  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  a  feast  upon  sacrifice,  than  of  our  of- 
feriiig  up  our  prayers,  or  our  performance  of  any  other  re- 
ligious act.  Celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper  is  itself  one 
act  of  our  Christian  duty,  in  consequence  of  its  having 
been  expressly  enjoined  by  our  Lord  ;  but  neither  that, 
nor  any  other  religious  act,  is  enjoined  in  the  gospel,  as  in 
any  degree  whatever  ati  atonement  for  sin. 
'!^  The  goodness  of  God  has  declaimed  in  the  go^l,  that 
through  the  merits  and  mediation  of  Christ,  our  sins,  if 
properly  repented  of,  shall  be  forgiven  ;  and  our  sincere 
though  imperfect  obedience  to  his  la^vs  be  rewarded  with 
rternal  life.     In  consequence  of  this  great  fundamental 


ITO.  VIII.]  APPENDIX.  83 

principle  of  our  redemption,  as  it  is  revealed  in  the  gos- 
pel, nothing  but  repentance,  productive  of  sincere  though 
imperfect  obedience,  can  obtain  for  us  the  forgiveness  of 
our  sins,  through  the  merits  and  mediation  of  Christ ;  and 
this  repentance  and  obedience  must  necessarily  include, 
and  be  estimated  by,  our  whole  conduct  through  life. 
Celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper  therefore  cannot  possibly 
be  the  means  of  applying  the  efficacy  of  the  mediation  of 
Christ  to  ourselves,  so  as  to  atone  for  our  sins  ;  since  it 
is  nothing  niore,  than  complying  with  one  single  com- 
mand, out  of  very  many  more,  which  the  gospel  no  less 
enjoins,  and  to  all  of  which,  witliout  exception,  our  obe- 
dience is  required. 

Since  therefore  the  Jewish  feasts  upon  sacrifice  actual- 
ly were,  and  the  pagan  were  understood  to  be,  to  all,  who 
partook  of  them,  actual  atonements,  or  appointed  means 
of  atonement,  for  those  sins  respectively,  on  account  of 
which  the  sacrifices  themselves  were  offered  up  ;  an4 
since  in  tlie  Christian  dispensation  there  is  not  any  rite,  or 
action,  enjomed  ;  the  celebration  or  performance  of  which 
is  there  appointed,  or  considered,  as  an  atonement  for  any 
sins  ;  so  as  tiiat  the  remission  of  any  sins  is  the  proper,  or 
even  the  possible  effect,  of  the  performance  of  such  action, 
on  the  celebration  of  such  rite  ;  it  follows  unavoidably, 
that  no  rite  of  the  Cliristian  religion  can  possibly  be  of  the 
same  nature,  and  have  the  same  effects,  with  the  Jewish 
and  Pagan  feasts  upon  sacrifice  ;  and  consequently,  that 
the  Lord's  Supper  cannot  be  -"  the  same  among  Christians, 
"  in  respect  to  tlie  Christian  sacrifice,  that  among  the  Jews 
*'  the  feasts  upon  the  legal  sacrifices  were,  and  among  the 
**  Gentiles  the  feasts  upon  the  idol  sacrifices  ;"  that  is, 
cannot  be  specifically  a  feast  upon  sacrifice,  Q,  £.  D'fcJ 

fcj  See  the  subsequent  note  on  this  page. 


NOTES. 


Page  2.]  IT  seems  requisite  to  apprize  the  reader,  that  this 
name  is  generally  made  use  of  throughout  this  treatise,  only  be- 
cause it  has  been  so  generally  adopted,  not  because  it  is  in  real- 
ity a  proper  denomination  of  the  rite  concerned.  The  rite  it- 
self, when  instituted  by  Jesus,  though  borrowed  from  a  ceremo- 
nial of  his  Supper,  was  totally  distinct  from  it  ;  nor  does  it  ap- 
pear that  at  the  first  establishment  of  Christianity  it  was  ever 
called  by  this  name.  In  the  time  of  the  apostles,  when  the  dis- 
ciples met  together  to  celebrate  this  rite,  they  adopted  a  prac- 
tice of  eating  together  a  common  supper  ;  as  a  memorial  most 
probably  of  that  Supper,  at,  and  immediately  after,  which  Jesus 
instituted  this  rite  :  and,  as  appears  at  least  extremely  probable 
from  what  St.  Paul  says  relating  to  it,  1  Cor.  xi.  20, 21  ;  it  was 
this  common  supper  of  their  own  adopting,  not  the  rite  by 
which  the  death  of  Jesus  was  commemorated,  which  was  then 
called  by  this  name.  The  religious  rite  itself,  which  has  since 
been  so  generally,  but  as  I  apprehend  improperly,  called  the 
Lord's  Supper,  there  seems  great  reason  for  believing,  from 
Acts  ii.  42,  46 ;  compared  wiih  Acts  xx.  7  ;  was  then  denomi- 
nated the  breaking'  of  bread,    ■ 

Page  4.]  Which  is  .shed for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins,— 
Bishop  Pearce  in  his  Commentary  proposes  to  translate  this  pas- 
sage, and  the  corresponding  ones  in  St.  Mark,  St.  Luke,  and 
St.  Paul,  in  a  different  manner  :  and  though  perhaps  no  conse- 
quence of  any  moment  would  follow  from  the  alteration,  yet  as 
these  are  the  words,  in  which  the  institution  of  the  rite  is  re- 
corded, it  may  be  requisite,  in  an  express  inquiry  into  its  true 
nature  and  design,  to  examine  an  alteration  in  the  manner  of 
translating  them,  proposed  by  so  very  respectable  an  authority. 

The  words  in  question,  as  related  by  St.  Matthew,  are — 
«r«T£  «|  avTov  5r«VTi5  j  revro  y«g  urTt  t«  u'lfix  (jtv,  ro  tj)?  x«;v»5  otxitiKrn,  to 
9rig<  ToXXaiv  iK^uvcfcuoi,  uf  u(pi<rtv  ufix^Tiav.'—The  exact  literal  transla- 
tion of  these  words  is — JDrink  ye  all  out  of  it  ;  for  this  is  my 
bloody  That  of  the  new  covenant^  That  shed  for  many  ^  for  rC' 


Page  4.]  NOTES.  85 

mission  of  sins. — And  this  their  literal  sense,  in  the  very  order 
in  which  they  stand,  is  so  clear,  express,  and  pointed,  that,  as 
no  other  translation  of  them  can  be  wanted  to  give  them  mean- 
ing ;  so,  I  apprehend,  none,  which  would  require  them  to  be 
materially  transposed,  and  when  so  transposed  would  either  al- 
ter their  sense,  or  render  their  meaning  less  clear  and  pointed, 
ought  to  be  admitted. 

Bishop  Pearce  however  is  inclined  to  be  of  opinion,  that  the 
word  iK.y(,vuft.vtm  is  not  to  be  referred  to  ul^ot^  though  that  is  ex- 
pressed ;  but  to  TTOTugwj,  though  only  understood  ;  so  as  to  make 
the  sentence  signify — ••'  This  wine,  which  was  just  now  poured 
*'  out  of  a  larger  vessel  for  you  to  drink  it  out  of  this  cup,  rep- 
*'  resents  my  blood." — Commentary,  vol.  i.  p.  184,  note  P. 

But  if  the  wine  in  the  cup,  given  by  Jesus  to  the  apostles, 
had  in  fact  been  poured  out  of  a  larger  vessel  into  that  cup, 
this  circumstance  was  surely  so  utterly  insignificant,  and  so  for- 
eign to  the  business  which  Jesus  was  then  upon,  the  institution 
of  his  new  rite  ;  that  it  seems  absolutely  impossible  he  could  at 
that  time  have  had  his  own  thoughts  upon  it,  or  take  any  no- 
tice of  it  to  them. 

And  even  if  the  insignificancy  of  the  sense  here  proposed 
did  not  render  it  incapable  of  being  admitted,  still,  it  is  appre- 
hended, the  construction  of  the  sentence  would  not  permit  it  to 
be  received.  For  it  appears  evident  on  inspection,  that  the 
clause,  TO  7r£§«  -xohy-m  m^vvcfiivcv,  must  refer  to  the  same  thing, 
whatever  that  may  be,  with  the  immediately  preceding  clause, 
TO  Tus  Kxtvyti  ^txi^KYii  ;  and  that,  to  its  own  immediate  preceding 
clause,  TO  xl^d  (Aov ;  and  consequently,  TO  5reg<  voXXm  uc^weftiuit  to 
ulftx  likewise. 

Had  St.  Matthew  meant  to  express,  by  t«  iKy^wofiivov,  the  wine  in 
the  cup,  and  not  the  blood  of  Jesus  ;  instead  of  writing  as  he  has, 
TflfT*  y«g  i<rrt  ro  xiftx  ftov,  Te  Trj?  x-ximi  ^ixd/ixtn,  to  -tci^i  voXXui  ix,^viofAtyort 
&c.  he  would  surely  have  so  placed  the  clause  in  question,  as  to 
make  it  express  that  meaning  ;  and  have  written,  tovto  y«g,  rowsg* 
TeXXun  SKjt^vvoftivov,  ie-ri  to  xI(Ax  ficv,  ro  ms  xxin?  ^ixh^f-my  Sec.  That  is, 
instead  oi  writing  as  he  has  done.  For  this  is  mij  bloody  that 
of  the  new  covenant^  that  poured  out  for  many^  &c.  he  would 
surely  have  written.  For  this^  which  is  poured  out  for  many^  is 
my  bloody  That  of  the  nezu  covenant^  &c.  And  since  he  has  not 
placed  his  words  in  this  obvious  manner,  we  have  all  the  evi- 
dence that  the  position  of  the  words  can  give,  that  he  did  not 
intend  them  to  be  understood  in  this  sense. 

Besides,  if  by  tKj^vtofctyet  Jesus  had  meant  the  wine,  and  not 
his  blood  ;  after  saying  to  them  Trmt  i|  avrov  Trxvns,  he  surely 
Qould  not  have  said,  that  it  was- — Tn^t'nrohh.m  ixxvyoftaoy  i  but  must 


^  NOTES.  [Pag-e  5. 

bare  said>  m^t  vfiuv,  or  5«§<  7r»vTm  vfMtv  t)cx,vufiiv6v  :  That  is,  after 
saying  to  them,  Drink  yk  all  oJ  it^  he  coula  not  have  added, 
that  it  was  poured  out  for  many  j  but  must  have  written,  pour- 
ed out  for  you  ;  or,  for  t/ou  all ;  since,  though  his  blood  was 
to  be  shed  for  many^  the  wine  in  the  cup  was  poured  out  for 
them  only. 

The  same  observations  are  applicable  to  the  words  of  St. 
Mark,  which  arc  as  close  and  pointed  as  those  of  St.  Matthew  ; 
and  if  translated  agreeably  to  the  Bishop's  proposed  interpreta- 
tion, will  stand  as  follows  ; — And  he  said  unto  them^  this  is  my 
blood  of  the  nexo  covenant^  That,  the  wine,  poured  out  into  this 
tup  for  many  :  but  this,  it  is  submitted,  is  such  a  sense  and  po- 
sition, as  needs  but  to  be  stated  in  order  to  be  rejected. 

The  woi*ds  of  St.  Luke  are  different  :— ref  re  ro  Trcrmof  n  xmhh  ^m- 
tfijxtj  £»  ru  ettfttiTi  ftev,  TO  vvig  vfiuv  iKj^vvef^ivoy.  Here  iKj^vyeft,tii*v  certainly 
agiees  with  -x-or^ior  -,  and  according  to  the  syntax  therefore  the 
clause  must  be  translated,  This  cup  is  the  neyv  covenant  in  7ny 
blood,  the  cup,  the  wine,  poured  out  fsr  you  ; — Or,  lliis  cupy 
the  7i€rv  coveiiant  in  my  blood,  is  the  cup,  the  wine,  poured  out 
for  you.  But  as  neither  of  these  senses  appears  capable  of  be- 
ing admitted,  the  strict  syntax  must  here,  as  in  some  similar 
passages,  which  have  been  remarked, (^of  J  be  given  up  j  and  St. 
Luke  be  interpreted  in  a  sense  agreeable  to  the  clear  and  point- 
ed sense  of  St.  Matthew  and  St,  Mark. 

The  words  of  St.  Paul,  relating  to  the  bread,  ai'e  vtvro  /mv  sa^t  t« 
vuft^y  T«  ia-{g  l/ftuv  x-Xaifiuov  I  This  is  my  body^  that  broken  J  or  you  : 
— But  if  by  broken  was  meant  the  bread,  and  not  the  body  ;  sure- 
ty" he  would  have  placed  the  wo^ds  so  as  namrally  to  express  that 
meaning,  thus  :— — tovtc,  t«  wTrgg  v^kv  K'Kuft.iiitv,  wt«  ra  (TKuut.  ftcv  :— • 
This,  which  is  broken  for  you,  is  my  ouay  :  and  since,  he  has 
not  placed  them  in  this  manner,  which  was  just  as  easy  and  as 
obvious  as  the  other,  we  are  bound  to  believe,  that  h«  did  not 
intend  to  express  this  sense. 

Notwithstanding  the  authority  of  Bishop  Pearce  therefore, 
and  what  happened  to  appear  probable  to  him,  at  the  time  wheii 
he  wrote  his  notes  on  these  particular  passages  ;  the  received 
translation,  it  is  presumed,  will  approve  itself,  upon  close  in- 
quiry, as  their  true  meaning. 

Pag'e  5.}  That  this  is  the  obvious  and  true  meaning  of  this 
injunction,  including  the  clause — as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  is,  I  im- 
agine, so  dear  as  to  require  no  proof.  It  has  however  been 
contended,  by  those  who  do  not  allow  that  Jesus  designed  on 

^aj  See  Bowyer's  pole,  and  a  passage  it  refers  to,  from  Bengelius,  on  the 
place  ;  as  well  as  Ephes.  iii.  17,  18  ;  Coloss.  iii.  16  ;  Apoc  i- 4,  5  ;  which 
have  likewise  been  rcfen-ed  to  on  tbe  same  account. 


Pagr  19,28.]  NOTES.  '       8T 

this  occasion  to  institute  any  r'lte^fbj  that  the  word»-r-o*  often'-* 
import  no  command  ;  and  in  efFeet  therefore  prevent  this  in- 
junction, as  delivered  by  St.  Paul,  from  having  the  force  of  a 
command.  But  scarce  any  thing,  I  think,  can  be  more  clear, 
than  that  in  order  to  have  this  effect,  the  words  in  question 
must  have  been — if  ever  ;  instead  of — as  often  as.  Had  Jesua 
said — "  this  do  ye,  if  ever  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me ;" 
the  objection  would  have  been  well  founded.  But  the  injunc- 
tion,  "  this  do  ye,  as  often  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of 
me  j"  especially  when  delivered,  as  this  was,  after  a  positive 
command  to  drink  of  the  cup  at  that  time,  and  to  eat  bread 
both  at  that  time,  and  in  remembrance  of  him  ;  could  not  sig- 
nify any  thing  less  than  a  similar  absolute  command  to  drink 
wine,  as  well  as  to  eat  bread  in  remembrance  of  him  ;  with 
this  additional  signification,  by  the  insertion  of  the  words  in 
question,  that  it  was  left  to  themselves  to  determine  how  oftenr 
to  do  it. 

Page\^.'\  To  the  general  rule  here  laid  down  one  excep- 
tion must  be  admitted.  If  any  individual  is  sincerely  persuad- 
ed, that  the  method  of  administering  the  bread  and  wine,  adopt- 
ed in  any  particular  church,  is  so  erroneous  and  superstitious, 
as  to  render  it  sinful  for  him  to  give  countenance,  by  his  exam- 
ple, to  such  error  and  superstition  ;  his  partaking  of  them  in 
that  manner  would  then  be  sinful,  and  it  becomes  his  duty  t» 
abstain  from  partaking  of  them  at  that  church. — But  in  order 
to  secure  him  from  all  fault  in  this  instance,  it  behoves  him  to 
be  particularly  careful  to  make  an  honest  and  virtuous  use  of 
his  abilities,  in  forming  the  judgment,  upon  which  he  acts. 

Page  28.]  Thougli  the  universal  and  perpetual  obligation 
of  the  institution  in  question  is  now,  it  is  hoped,  abundantly  es- 
tablished, it  may  perhaps  be  attended  with  use  to  take  notice 
here  of  the  argument  principally  relied  on  by  those  Christians, 
who  deny  it  to  have  been  the  intention  of  Jesus  to  institute  such 
a  standing  rite,  and  who  therefore  pay  no  regard  to  it. 

It  has  been  alledged,  that  there  are  other  practices  and  in-- 
j unctions  of  our  Saviour  and  the  apostles  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament,  which  have  at  least  as  good  a  claim,  as  those  relat- 
ing to  the  bread  and  wine,  to  be  regarded  as  standing  institu- 
tions of  the  religion  of  the  gospel  ;  in  consequence  of  which 
however  we  do  not  celebrate  any  rite  ;  and  therefore  that  the 
ceremony  of  partaking  of  bread  and  wine  ought  not  to  be  re- 
tained. 

But  surely  it  needs  very  little  consideration  to  perceive,  that 

C^)  See  Batclay's  apology,  page  47r. 


U  NOTES.  [Fa^e  28. 

this  objection,  even  granting  that  there  are  any  other  injunctions 
in  the  New  Testament  so  circumstanced,  as  is  here  supposed, 
will  by  no  means  warrant  the  conclusion  drawn  from  it.  On 
this  supposition,  it  would  indeed  convict  us  of  inconsistency  in 
our  conduct,  and  error  in  some  part  of  it  ;  but  this  alone  could 
never  prove  in  which  part  of  our  inconsistent  conduct  we  had 
acted  erroneously  ;  whether  in  retaining  the  rite  we  have  re- 
tained, or  rejecting  whatever  practices  we  have  rejected.  We 
are  utterly  destitute  of  all  principles  of  judging  before-hand 
what  rites  our  Saviour  might  think  proper  to  institute.  Wheth- 
er therefox-e  we  ought  to  admit,  or  reject,  any  particular  prac- 
tice recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  as  having  been  intended, 
or  not  intended  for  a  standing  rite  of  the  religion  of  Christ,  is  a 
point,  that  must  be  determined  solely  by  the  conduct  or  direc- 
tions of  Jesus  or  his  apostles,  with  respect  to  such  particular 
practices  independently  of  all  others.  And  how  clearly  their 
conduct  and  directions  prove,  that  the  pai-taking  of  bread  and 
wine  in  religious  commemoration  of  the  death  of  Jesus,  was  de- 
signed by  him  to  be  a  standing  rite  of  the  religion  of  the  gos- 
pel, has  now,  it  is  imagined,  been  fully  seen. 

But  as  there  is  one  transaction  in  particular,  which  has  been 
insisted  on  with  a  degree  of  plausibility,  as  having  at  least  as 
strong  a  claim  as  his  direction  to  eat  bread  and  drink  wine  in 
remembrance  of  him,  to  be  regarded  as  a  designed  institution 
of  a  standing  rite  of  his  religion,  it  will  perhaps  be  satisfactory 
to  consider  what  has  been  urged  in  support  of  this  opinion. 

The  transaction  alluded  to  is  the  very  remarkable  behaviour 
of  Jesus,  when  he  washed  the  feet  of  his  apostles,  as  it  was  re- 
corded by  St.  John.fcJ  It  has  been  alledged,  that  his  com- 
mand to  the  apostles  on  this  occasion,  to  zvash  07ie  another's 
Jeety  was  given  on  the  very  same  night  with  that  "  to  eat  bread, 
and  drink  wine,  in  remembrance  of  him  ;"  the  night,  on  which 
he  was  betrayed. — That  the  several  circumstances  preceding  it, 
*'  Jesus's  rising  from  supper,  laying  by  his  garments,  girding 
"  himself  with  a  towel,  pouring  water  into  a  vessel,  washing  all 
"  their  feet,  and  wiping  them  with  the  towel,"  were  in  themselves 
far  more  remarkable,  than  his  "  taking  bread,"  when  at  the 
paschal  supper,  and  "  blessing,"  and  "  breaking  it,"  and  "  giv- 
*'  ing  it  to  them,  saying,  take,  eat,  this  is  my  body  ;"  and  after 
supper  "  taking  the  cup,  imd  giving  thanks,  and  giving  it  to 
*'  them,  saying,  drink  ye  all  of  it  ;  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the 
*'  New  Testament,  which  is  shed  for  many,  for  the  remission  of 
"  sins." — ^That  the  command, "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me  ;" 

CcJ  John  xiii.  2 — 17: 


Page  28.]  NOTES.  39 

was  not  so  striking,  as  his  putting  the  question  to  them,  when 
lie  had  sat  down  again  after  washing  their  feet,  "  Know  ye 
*'  what  I  have  done  unto  you  ?"  and  then  adding,  to  explain 
his  design,  "  If  I,  your  Lord  and  Master,  haVe  washed  your 
*'  feet,  ye  ought  also  to  wash  one  another's  feet  ;"  and  even 
enforcing  this  conchision  by  adding  still  further,  "  I  have  giv- 
"  en  you  an  example,  that  ye  should  do  as  I  have  done  to 
*'  you." — That  on  the  one  occasion  he  said  to  Peter,  *'  If  I  M-ash 
""  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part  in  me  ;"  but  that  on  the  other,  he 
made  no  mention  of  any  ill  consequence  that  would  have  aris- 
en to  them,  if  they  had  refused  to  eat  of  the  bread,  or  drink 
of  the  wine,  as  he  commanded  them. — And  upon  the  whole, 
that  if  v>'e  consider  the  time,  when  this  transaction  took  place, 
the  several  particulars  included  in  it,  or  the  injunctions,  which 
followed  it,  it  has  as  mvich  to  recommend  it,  as  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  standing  ordinance  of  the  gospel,  as  Jesus's  giving 
the  bread  and  wine  to  the  apostles,  directing  them  to  eat  of 
the  one  and  drink  of  the  other,  and  enjoining  them  to  "  do 
this  in  remembrance  of  him  ;"  or  any  other  injunction  record- 
ed in  the  New  Testament. (^i/J 

Such  are  the  particulars,  which  have  been  insisted  on  with 
regard  to  this  very  striking  particular  in  the  behaviour  of  Jesus. 
But  that  these  considerations,  notwithstanding  the  plausibility 
of  their  appearance,  will  not  warrant  the  conclusion  drawn 
from  them  ;  a  due  consideration  of  what  Jesus  said  upon  the 
occasion,  joined  with  the  subsequent  conduct  of  the  apostles, 
will  unanswerably  prove. 

When  Jesus  instituted  the  eucharist,  he  cleai'ly  and  expressly 
directed  the  apostles  to  perform  that  action,  which  he  meant 
they  should  repeat.  "  Take,  eat," — "  Drink  ye  all  of  this  ;" — 
"  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  And  had  he  designed  to 
institute  a  ceremony  of  their  washing  each  other's  feet,  he  would 
no  doubt  have  commanded  them  todo  that  in  a  similar  manner. 

But  in  this  instance,  instead  of  giving  them  any  such  author- 
itative command^  he  only  appealed  to  what  they  ought  to  do  in 
consequence  of  his  example.  "  Know  ye,  said  Jesus,  what  I 
"  have  done  to  you  ?  Ye  call  me  Lord  and  Master,  and  ye 
«  **  say  well,  for  so  I  am.  If  I  then,  your  Lord  and  Master, 
*'  have  washed  your  feet,  ye  ought  also  to  wash  one  another's 
.  *'  feet.  For  I  have  given  you  an  example,  that  ye  should  do 
"  as  I  have  done  to  you.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the 
*'  servant  is  not  greater  than  his  Loid,  neither  he,  that  is  sent, 
"  greater  than  he,  that  sent  him." 

CdJ  See  Barclay's  apology,  p.  467—469. 


#       '  NOTES.  [Page  28, 

If  Jesus  meant,  by  the  action  he  had  now  performed,  t6t 
press  upon  the  apostles  the  practice  of  the  moral  duties  oif 
brotherly  love  and  humility,  no  action  could  be  better  adapt- 
ed, nor  could  any  stronger  reason  be  alledged,  to  ex- 
plain and  enforce  his  design  ;  since  the  example  of  him, 
tv^hom  they  acknowledged  for  their  Lord  and  Master,  in 
so  singular  an  exercise  of  humilit}%  was  certainly  one  of 
the  strongest  proofs,  that  they  ought  to  put  in  practice 
even  a  less  degree  of  the  same  virtue.  But  if  his  design  was 
to  institute  a  ceren'ionial  rite,  what  he  now  said  was  neither  so 
well  calculated  to  signify  that  intent,  as  a  simple  and  direct 
command  to  observe  such  a  practice  would  have  been  ;  nor 
»uch  an  explanation  of  his  design  as  he  would  most  naturally 
Iiave  given  ;  because  his  example  in  the  action  of  washing  their 
feet,  was  no  proof  that  they  ought  to  adopt  a  ceremony  of  wash- 
ing each  other's  feet ;  for  this  plain  reason,  that  nothing  but  an 
express  command  from  him  could  inform  them,  of  its  being  his 
intention  that  they  should  observe  such  a  practice.  Since,  there- 
fore, instead  of  giving  them  such  a  direct  and  absolute  commandy 
in  the  manner  he  afterwards  did  w^ith  respect  to  the  bread  and 
wine  ;  he  only  pressed  upon  them  the  proper  influence  of  his 
example ;  it  appears  highly  reasonable  to  conclude  from  this 
ciixumstance,  that  his  real  design  was  only  to  inculcate  the 
practice  of  those  virtues,  which  the  action  he  performed,  em- 
blematically understood,  was  so  strikingly  calculated  to  enforce  ; 
not  to  enjoin  a  repetition  of  the  action  itself,  as  a  rite  of  his 
religion.  And  when  it  is  likewise  considered,  that  he  closed 
his  admonition,  founded  on  hiis  example,  with  this  reflection, 
*'  If  ye  know  these  things,  happy  are  ye  if  ye  do  them  ;"  we 
shall  scarcely  require  any  further  proof,  that  the  things  he  had 
then  in  his  thoughts  must  have  been  the  obligations  they  were 
under,  and  especially  from  his  example  in  this  instance,  to 
practice  the  virtues  of  brotherly  love  and  humility  ;  not  the 
adopting  a  ceremony  of  washing  each  other^s  feet,  as  a  rite  of 
his  religion. 

And  that  this  was  the  sense,  in  which  the  apostles  actually 
did  understand  the  conduct  and  admonitions  of  Jesus  on  this 
occasion,  as  well  as  that  sense,  in  which  he  designed  it  to  be 
understood  by  them,  some  circumstances,  considered  joindj 
with  their  subsequent  conduct,  v/ill  unanswerably  prove. 

When  Jesus  came  to  Peter,  after  having  already  washed  the 
feet  of  some,  and  Peter,  out  of  respect,  refused  to  let  him  wash 
his  ;  Jesus,  to  overcome  his  well  meant  refusal,  said  to  him, 
*'  What  I  do,"  i.  e.  my  design  in  this  action,  "  thou  knowest 


Page  28.]  NOTES.  91 

*'  not  now,  but  thou  shalt  know  as  soon  as  I  have  done."(^eJ 
Accordingly  "  after  he  had  washed  their  feet,  and  had  taken 
"  his  garments,  and  was  set  down  again,  he  said  unto  them, 
*'  Know  ye  what  I  have  done  unto  you  r"  and  immediately  ex- 
plained to  ihem  his  design  in  this  action,  in  the  manner  we 
have  seen. 

It  is  certain  therefore,  that  Jesus  meant  to  make  them  under- 
stand his  design  in  this  action  at  the  very  time  ;  and  as  they 
were  the  persons,  whom  he  had  chosen  to  preach  his  gospel, 
and  by  whom  alone  he  intended  it  should  be  established  in  the 
world  ;  whatever  his  meaning  was  in  the  action  he  had  just 
performed,  and  the  explanation  he  now  gave  them  of  it,  he 
could  not  possibly  leave  them,  in  the  end,  under  any  ignorance 
or  mistake  I  elating  to  it.  If  therefore  it  had  been  his  inten- 
tion to  inform  the  apostles  by  this  transaction,  joined  with  his 
own  explanation  of  it,  that  they  were  to  establish  a  ceremony 
of  washing  each  other's  feet,  as  an  ordinance  of  his  religion  ; 
he  would  certainly  have  taken  care,  either  at  this  very  time,  or, 
at  the  latest,  when  they  were  furnished  with  the  necessary 
knowledge  for  entering  upon  their  office  of  preaching  the  gos- 
pel, to  make  them  lully  acquainted  with  this  design  :  in  conse- 
quence of  this,  they  must  actually  have  observed  such  a  cere- 
mony themselves,  and  directed  the  observation  of  it  by  all 
their  disciples  ;  and  it  would  have  been  found,  this  rite,  like 
that  of  eating  bread  and  drinking  wine  in  remembrance  of  Je- 
5us,  was,  from  the  heginning,  an  established  practice  of  the 
christian  world. 

Is  this  then  the  fact  ?  On  the  contrary,  there  is  not  even  the 
least  shadow  of  reason  for  supposing,  nor  has  any  one  ever 
supposed,  that  the  action,  which  Jesus  on  this  occasion  perform- 
ed, was  ever  so  much  as  imitated  by  the  apostles  themselves  ; 
and  much  less  that  they  ever  required  the  imitation  of  it,  as  an 
ordinance  of  the  Gospel,  from  those,  whom  they  converted  to 
the  faith.  Nay,  so  far  were  the  apostles  from  having  any  con- 
ception, that  Jesus  intended  by  what  he  did  and  said  on  this  oc- 
casion to  direct  them  to  observe  such  a  practice,  and  require 
the  obsei-vation  o*'  it  by  their  disciples  ;  that  neither  Matthew, 
Mark,  nor  Luke,  who  succeeded  each  other  in  writing  their 
gospelsjfyj  have  made  the  least  mention  of  this  whole  transac- 

CeJ  We  translate  tliis,  "  Thou  shalt  know  hereafter  ,-"  which,  in  the  gen- 
eral acception  of  that  word,  rathei-  signifies,  that  Jesus  would  inform  him  at 
some  distant  time  :  but  the  words  in  tlie  original,  uirx  T«t»T<e,  "  ulVcr  these 
things,"  plainly  signify  here,  "  as  soon  as  I  have  finished  what  I  am  now  do-? 
jng." 

CfJ  See  Mr.  Townson's  late  valuable  xliscourses  on  the  Four  Gospels, 


92  NOTES.  [Pa^e  28. 

tion  ;  while  they  have  each  recorded  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  ;  and  had  not  John,  who  wrote  his  gospel  after 
them,  made  it  his  peculiar  design  to  preserve  a  variety  of  the 
private  discourses  of  Jesus  with  the  apostles,  which  related 
more  especially  to  him  alone,  and  v/hich  MattheAV,  Mark,  and 
Luke  had  omitted  ;  we  should  never  have  been  made  acquainted 
with  any  particular  of  his  conduct  in  this  instance.  And  since 
it  is  unquesiionable,  that  while  the  apostles  zealously  inculcated 
the  virtues  recommended  by  this  action,  none  of  them,  not  even 
John,  the  very  evangelist,  v/ho  has  recorded  it,  even  imitated 
the  action  itself  ;  it  must  be  admitted,  that  the  allegorical  sense 
of  it  alone  was  that,  in  which  they  understood  it,  as  well  as 
that,  in  which  Jesus  certainly  designed  it  to  be  understood  by 
them. 

It  appears  therefore  from  the  very  different  manner,  in 
which  Jesus  expressed  his  designs,  in  the  two  distinct  instances 
under  consideration  ;  but  more  especially  from  the  opposite 
conduct  of  the  aposdes  with  respect  to  the  two  transactions  ; 
that  it  certainly  was  the  intention  of  Jesus,  that  all,  who  might 
ever  come  to  profess  the  faith  in  him,  should  partake  of  bread 
and  wine  in  religious  commemoration  of  him  ;  but  not  his  in- 
tention that  they  should  observe  a  ceremony  of  washing  each 
other's  feet,  in  consequence  of  what  he  said  to  the  apostles,  to 
explain  his  dt^sign  in  washing  their  feet. 

Nor  can  the  performance  of  this  singular  action  by  Jesus 
with  such  an  allegorical  intent,  or  tUeir  unrierstanding  it  in  the 
figurative  sense  he  designed  they  should,  give  us  any  just  cause 
for  surprise.  Brotherly  love  and  humility  were  the  distinguish- 
ing characteristics  of  Jesus  himself,  as  well  as  of  the  religion  he 
came  to  establish  ;  and  a  very  uncommon  portion  of  these  vir- 
tues in  particular  was  peculiarly  necessary  in  those,  who  were 
to  preach  it  to  the  world.  The  apostles,  on  the  contrary,  were 
so  tar  from  possessing  these  virtues  in  the  requisite  degree  for 
the  task  they  were  intended  to  perform,  that  they  had  more  than 
once  betrayed  such  a  spirit  of  ambitious  contention,  as  Jesus  had 
been  obliged  to  reprehend  them  for  in  the  most  forcible  terms,  fg- J 
After  this,  it  cannot  surely  be  matter  of  wonder,  when  Jesus 
knew  he  was  within  two  daysffij  to  be  taken  from  them,  that 

CgJ  See  Math,  xviii,  4  ;  xx.  25 — 29  ;  xxiii.  11  ;  Mark  ix.  33 — 55  ;  x. 
42—45  ;  Luke  ix.  46—48  ;  xxii.  24—27. 

fhj  In  the  former  edition  of  this  U'ealisc  I  adopted  tlie  opinion  of  many 
commentators  and  harmonists,  thai  Jesus  waslied  die  feet  of  the  apostles  on 
the  night  on  which  he  was  betru}  ed.  And  it  being-  recorded  by  St.  Luke, 
xxii.  24 — 28,  that  tliere  was  on  that  night  a  strife  among  them,  which  of  them 
^hoifid  be  accounted  fhe  greatest  ;  and  Bishop  Newcome  having  very  jv;dif  - 


Page  28.]  NOTES.  93 

he  should  perform  some  striking  action  to  press  upon  them  in 
the  strongest  manner  those  particular  virtues  they  would  have 
so  much  occasion  for,  and  in  which  they  were  so  deficient  ;  or 

iously  observed  in  his  hai-mony,  (see  his  note  on  section  122,)  that  this  con- 
tention caiuiotbe  supposed  to  have  ai'isen  after  so  remarkable  a  lesson^ofhu^ 
mility  given  tliem  by  Jesus  on  that  very  night ;  I  thence  di-ew  the  conclusion, 
which  Bishop  Nevvcome  Ukewise  mentions,  that  this  strife  between  the  apos- 
tles must  be  supposed  to  have  given  occasion  to  that  singular  action  of  our 
Lord. 

But  having  since  considered  the  relations  of  the  evangelists  with  more  ac- 
curacy, it  appears  proper  to  lay  before  the  reader  some  pailiculars  which 
have  fully  convinced  me,  that  the  Supper  spoken  of  by  St.  John,  chapter  13, 
at  which  Jesus  washed  the  feet  of  the  apostles,  was  not  his  last  supper,  at 
which  he  instituted  the  eucharist  ;  but  that,  wliich  he  partook  of  at  the 
house  of  Simon  tlie  leper  at  Betiiany,  two  nights,  according  to  Lightfoot, 
before  his  last. 

St.  Luke  expressly  relates,  tliat  the  sU-ife  above-mentioned  arose  among 
the  apostles  on  tlie  evening  of  the  last  supper  ;  and  likewise  gives  an  account 
of  what  Jesus  said  to  tliem  upon  it ;  ch.  xxii.  24 — 30  :  but  he  makes  not  the 
least  mention  of  his  washing  their  feet  ;  and  what  he  relates,  as  having  been 
said  to  them  by  Jesus  upon  occasion  of  this  dispute,  is  very  different  from  the 
discom-se  of  Jesus,  related  by  St.  John,  in  ch.  xiii.  as  having  immediately  fol- 
lowed the  washing  their  feet.  And  as  that  remarkable  action,  if  it  took 
place  on  tlie  same  night  with  this  contention  between  tlie  apostles,  must  be 
supposed  to  have  been  occasioned  by  it  ;  and  it  seems  utterly  incredible 
that  St.  Luke  could,  in  that  case,  have  recorded  the  contention  itself,  with- 
out mentioning  so  very  singidar  a  transaction  as  following  from  it  ;  the  total 
silence  of  St.  Luke  v^ith  regard  to  it  appears  a  decisive  proof,  that  it  did  not 
take  place  on  the  same  night. 

And  a  similai-  observation  is  equally  applicable  to  the  relation  of  St.  John. 
As  St.  Luke  has  recorded  the  contention  between  the  apostles  on  the  night  of 
the  last  Supper,  without  any  mention  of  Jcsus's  washing  their  feet ;  so  St. 
John  has  very  minutely  related  the  manner,  in  which  Jesus  v\  ashed  their 
feet,  at  some  Supper  ;  without  making  mention  of  any  dispute,  about  which 
of  them  should  be  greatest,  as  having  arisen  among  tlie  apostles  on  the  same 
evening.  And  as,  if  tliese  two  events  came  to  pass  on  the  same  evening,  the 
one  must  be  supposed  to  have  been  occasioned  by  the  other  ;  and  it  seems 
utterly  incredible,  tliat  St.  Jolui  could  have  recorded  the  washing  of  the  apos- 
tles' feet,  without  taking  any  notice  of  tlic  previous  contention  between  them, 
which  must,  in  this  case,  have  given  rise  to  it  ;  his  having  done  so  affords  a 
decisive  proof,  that  the  wasliing  of  their  feet,  recorded  by  St.  John,  did  not  take 
place  on  the  same  night  with  that  contention  between  them,  related  by  St. 
Luke,  and  which  he  expressly  describes  as  having  happened  on  tlie  night  of 
the  last  Supper. 

This  conclusion  is  Ukewise  in  no  small  degree  confii*med  by  the  following 
very  particular  manner,  in  which  St.  John  inti-oduces  his  account  of  Jesus's 
■washing  the  f^et  of  the  apostles  : — "  Now  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover, 
"  when  Jesus  knew  that  his  hour  was  come  that  he  should  depart  out  of  this 
"  world  unto  the  Father,  having  loved  his  ov/n,  which  were  in  the  world,  he 
"  loved  them  unto  the  end.  And  the  time  of  Supper  being  come,  (the  devil 
"  having  now  put  into  tjie  heai-t  of  Judas  Iscariot,  Simon's  son,  vo  betray 
"  him  ;)  Jesus  knowmg  that  the  Father  had  given  all  things  hito  liis  hands, 
'*  and  that  he  came  fi-om  God,  and  went  to  God  ;  he  riseth  from  supper,  and 
''  laid  aside  his  garm.ents,  and  took  a  towel,  &c."  John  xiii.  1^-4. 

This  account  of  the  motives,  wliich  induced  Jesus  to  perform  the  smgiilar 


St  NOTES.  (Pag-e  28. 

that  they  should  understand  any  action  he  performed  with  thig 
view,  and  accompauied  with  an  explanation  of  his  design,  in 
that  sense,  in  which  he  intended  it  to  be  understood. 

This  point  cannot  stand  in  need  of  any  further  proof.  But 
there  is  still  one  particular  oi  the  objection  remaining  unnotic- 
ed, which,  on  account  of  the  use  that  has  been  made  of  it,  it 
will  be  satisfactory  to  explain. 

It  has  been  aliedged,  that  when  Jesus  gave  the  aposdes  the 
bread  and  wine,  he  did  not  signify  to  any  of  them,  that  if  they 
did  not  eat  of  the  one,  or  drink  of  the  other,  they  Avould  draw 
on  themselves  any  evil  by  refusing  it  ;  but  that,  when  he  washed 
their  feet,  he  said  to  Peter,  If  Izvash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part 
with  me  :  and  that,  "  this  being  spoken  upon  Peters  refusing 
**  to  let  him  wash  his  feet,  should  seem  to  import  not  only  the 
"  continuance,  but  even  the  necessity  of  this  ceremony." (^? J 

But  in  fact,  what  can  be  more  evident,  than  that  the  words 
in  question  relate  only  to  the  action,  which  Jesus  himself  was 
performing  at  that  very  time,  without  reference  to  any  repeti- 
tion of  it  by  them  ?  Jesus's  words  were — If  I  wash  thee  not  ; 
i.  e.  if  you  refuse  to  let  me  wash  you^  now,  at  this  time,  as  I 
Was  going  to  have  done  ; — Not,  if  you  do  not  hereafter  observe 
a  ceremony  of  washing  one  another  ;  as  he  must  have  said,  to 
warrant  the  inference  here  drawn  :  and  accordingly,  in  return, 
St»  Peter  immediately  expressed  his  eager  desire  to  be  washed 
by  Jesus,  at  that  time  ;  but  without  the  least  conception  of  any 
future  washing  to  take  plaeie  among  themselves. — And  what 
was  the  evil,  which  Jesus  informed  Peter  he  would  sustain,  if 
he  continued  to  refuse  ?  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part 
with  me.     The  meaning  of  which  is  extremely  simple  and  ob- 

action,  which  St.  John  immediately  relates,  is  very  striking  ;  nor  can  any 
thing  be  more  cleai',  than  that  the  evangelist  here  represents  Jesus,  as  hav- 
ing been  induced  to  act  in  the  very  remarkable  manner  he  immediately  did, 
not  by  any  ambitious  contest  tliat  had  arisen  among  tlie  apostles,  on  tliat 
night ;  but  by  such  secret  reflections,  as  at  that  pailiculai*  season  naturally 
took  possession  of  his  own  mind,  upon  the  very  neai*  approach  of  tlie  time, 
when  he  himself  knew  that  he  should  be  taken  fi-om  tliem,  by  being  put  to 
^eath. 

These  considerations  alone  appear  decisive  ;  and  when  added  to  several 
(Dtliers  urged  by  Lightfoot  (1)  in  proof  of  the  same  point,  place  it,  I  conceive, 
absolutely  beyond  doubt,  that  it  was  not  on  tlie  night  of  the  last  Supper,  but 
at  the  Supper  in  tlic  house  of  Simon  the  leper  in  Bethany,(2)  two  nights  be- 
fore, as  Lightfoot  concludes,  that  Jesus  washed  the  feet  of  tlie  apostles. 

ft  J  See  Barclay's  Apology,  p.  468. 


(1)  See  Lightfoot  vol.  i.  251,  252—254—258—261,  and  709  ;  vol.  ii.  253 
—254.  260,  261.— On  John  xii.  2.  Ibid.  586,  587  ;  and  on-Jolm  xiii.  2,  Ibid. 
594  ;  and  on  verse  30,  597. 

(2)  Mentioned  in  Matthew  xxvi.  6,  &c. 


Page  31.]  NOTES.  9Sf 

▼ious,  and  nothing  more  than  this  : — "  If  you  refuse  to  comply 
with  my  intention,  you  cannot  really  regard  me  as  your  Lord 
and  Master,  nor  can  I  consider  you  as  my  disciple  ;  and  yoa 
cannot  therefore  have  any  share  in  that  dispensation,  which  it  is 
my  business  to  establish." 

As  none  of  the  apostles  refused  to  partake  of  the  bread  and 
wine,  when  he  directed  them  to  do  it.  no  cause  was  given  for 
his  saying  any  thing  of  this  kind  upon  that  occasion.  But  had 
Peter,  or  any  of  the  rest,  refused  in  like  manner  to  comply  with 
his  direction,  when  he  said,  Take^  eot,  &:c.  a7id  drink  ye  all  of 
this^  &c.  his  answer  to  them  in  that  instance  would,  for  the  same 
reasons,  have  been  exactly  similar  to  v,  hat  it  was  in  this  :  ^ 
thou  eatest,  er  drinkest^  not^  thou  hast  no  part  with  me  ;  and 
this,  even  if  he  had  only  ordered  them  to  eat  and  drink  at  that 
time  ;  without  adding  the  further  command — Do  this  in  remem- 
brance of  me  ;  and  without  intending  to  institute  any  standing 
ceremony  of  that  kind.  For  the  mere  eating  or  not  eating,  as 
w^ell  as  the  being  washed  or  not  washed,  were  circumstances  in 
themselves  alone  not  productive  either  of  good  or  harm  ;  but 
their  not  complying  with  any  injunction  of  Jesus  must  necessa- 
rily convict  them  of  not  taking  him  for  their  Lord,^nd  not  being 
his  sincere  disciples  ;  and  must  therefore  unavoidably  prevent 
them  from  being  permitted  to  have  any  concern  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  his  gospel. 

Page  31.]  Notwithstanding  these  particulars,  In  which  Jesus 
gave  his  own  manner  of  instituting  the  rite,  he  now  ordained,  a 
resemblance  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Passover,  that  he  was 
celebrating  at  the  time,  had  been  instituted  ;  to  prevent  misap- 
prehensions it  may  be  useful  to  observe,  that  the  form  of  the  rite 
instituted  by  Jesus  was  not  borrowed  from  any  part  of  the  Pas- 
chal Supper  itself,  as  instituted  by  Moses  ;  to  which  it  had  not 
even  the  smallest  resemblance  ;  but  wholly  from  a  custom  es- 
tablished by  the  Jews  without  any  command,  of  blessing  and 
distributing  bread  and  wine,  at  all  the  public  festivals  of  their 
religion,  as  well  as  the  Passover.  And  to  comprehend  how 
Jesus  came  to  adopt  this  particular  method  of  commemorating 
his  own  death,  nothing  more  is  necessary,  than  to  know  what 
that  practice  of  the  Jews  was. 

"  Among  the  Jews,"  says  Bishop  Pearce, "  in  all  their  public 
"  festivals  it  was  a  custom  for  the  master  of  the  house,  when 
*'  his  guests  were  set  down,  to  bless  bread  and  then  break  it, 
**  and  give  a  piece  of  it  to  every  one  at  table  ;  and  so  after  sup- 
*'  per  to  take  a  cup  of  wine,  and  having  blessed  it,  and  drank  of 
"  it  himself,  to  give  it  round  for  the  guests  to  drink  likewise  : 


96  NOTES. 

"  hence  came  the  phrase  of  KX»rtf  rev  m^4Ut  and  hence  that  of 
"  ir»T>jgi»»  fvXoytxg,  the  cup  of  blessing  ;  the  same  with  the  grace 
"  cup,  and  which  was  their  closing  cup.  This  ceremony  among 
*'  the  Jews  was  ritual  only  ;  it  was  properly  acknowledging  God 
*'  in  his  creatm-es,  thanking  and  praising  him  for  his  goodness 
**  in  vouchsafing  to  them  the  use  of  them.  Now  to  this  cere- 
*'  mony  our  Lord  annexed  the  commemoration  of  his  death  ; 
"  requiring  his  disciples,  when  they  broke  that  bread,  to  jein 
"  with  their  thanksgiving  to  God  for  the  bread,  a  commemora- 
"  tion  of  his  body  broken  on  the  cross  ;  and  when  they  drank 
"  that  cup,  to  join  with  their  thanksgiving  for  the  wine,  a  com- 
*'  memoration  of  the  blood  shed,  or  poured  out  for  them.^^fkj 

The  professed  writers  on  Jewish  Antiquities  inform  us  more 
minutely — ^That  as  soon  as  the  guests  were  placed  at  the  table 
to  eat  the  Passover,  the  master  of  the  family  began  with  taking 
a  cup  of  wine,  over  which  he  said  a  certain  appointed  thanksgiv- 
ing, and  then  gave  it  to  be  dra-ak  of  by  all  : — That  when  they 
had  eat  a  little  of  one  fixed  thing,  they  had  a  second  cup,  over 
which  certain  appointed  psalms  were  rehearsed  : — That  after 
this  the  master  of  the  feast  took  bread,  over  which  he  said  an 
appointed  thanksgiving,  aad  then  broke  it,  ate  a  bit  of  it  himself, 
and  distributed  it  in  the  same  manner  to  all  present : — That  when 
they  had  eat  of  the  paschal  lamb  itself,  which  was  always  the 
last  thing  they  did  eat  of,  they  had  a  third  cup  of  wine  ;  which 
from  the  particular  thanksgivings  said  over  it,  was  emphatically 
called  the  cup  of  blessing- ; — And  that  after  the  rehearsal  of 
other  appointed  psalms  and  prayers,  a  fourth  cup  concluded  the 
feast,  f /J 

From  these  particulars,  compared  with  the  relations  of  the 
Evangelists,  we  see  in  what  manner  Jesus  acted  on  this  oc- 
casion, and  how  naturally  he  founded  the  institution  of  his 
own  rite  upon  this  ceremonial.  Upon  delivering  the  usual 
cup,  in  the  accustomed  manner,  at  the  beginning  as  it  should 
seem,  he  added  from  himself,  Take  this,  and  divide  it  among- 
yourselves  ;  for  I  say  unto  you,  I  xvill  not  drink  of  the  fruit  of 
the  vine,  until  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  come.  Afterwards  up- 
on distributing  the  bread  in  the  usual  manner,  as  they  were  eat- 
ing-, he  added,  in  order  to  institute  his  own  intended  rite,  Take^ 
eat,  this  is  ?ny  body,  which  is  given  for  you  ;  this  do  in  remem^ 
brance  of  me.     And  upon  giving  the  customary  cup,  called  em- 

fkj  Bishop  Pearce's  second  letter  to  Dr.  Waterland.      Commentary,  vol. 
ii.  p.  443.     See  likewise  p.  423,  424  ;  and  Commeiitaiy  on  1  Cor.  x.  16.  p.  253 ; 
and  on  1  Cor.  xi.  24.  p.  268. 
.    CO  See  Lightfoot,  vol.  i.  p.  967 


Page  39, 40.]  NOTES.  ^7 

phatlcally  the  cup  tf  blessing'^  when  they  h«d  done  eating,  he 
added  in  like  manner,  Drink  ye  all  oj  it  ;  for  this  is  my  blood 
of  the  New  Testament^  or,  the  New  Testament  in  vty  blood; 
•which  is  shed  for  you^  or,  for  many^  for  the  remission  of  sins  ; 
this  do  ye^  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it^  in  remembrance  of  me. 

Thus  Avas  the  form  of  eating  bread  and  drinking  wine  in  the 
Eucharist  borrowed  entirely  from  this  established  practice  of 
the  Jews.  But  as  this  ceremonial  was  not  a  part  of  the  Pas- 
chal Supper  itself,  as  it  was  instituted  by  Moses  ;  which  con- 
sisted of  nothing  more  than  eating  the  Paschal  Lamb  in  a  cer- 
tain prescribed  manner  ;f/nj  it  is  evident  that  the  Christian 
rite  of  eating  bread  and  drinking  wine,  in  memory  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  is  not  borrowed  from  the  Passover  itself,  but  merely 
from  a  ceremonial  which  the  Jews  had  thought  fit  to  introduce 
without  any  injunction  of  their  law  ;  and  which  was  common 
to  all  their  religious  festivals,  as  well  as  the  Passover,  though 
confined  to  their  religious  festivals  alone. 

Page  39.]  Had  Bishop  Warburton  happened  to  have  ob- 
served the  perfectly  corresponding  meaning  of  these  words  ia 
the  several  passages  here  referred  to,  he  could  not,  it  is  presum- 
ed, have  inclined  to  the  opinion,  as  hedoes,fj»J  in  opposition  to 
Bishop  Hoadly,(^oJ  that  xcimytct  was  used  to  signify  the  inward 
or  spiritual  part  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  f.6Ts%j<»  the  external 
part  only.  In  fact,  it  appears  from  the  passages  referred  to, 
that  there  is  not  any  ground  for  such  a  distinction  ;  and  xctmuet 
here  signifies  nothing  else  than  the  participation  of  the  bread  and 
wine,  considered  as  the  appointed  representatives,  or  memorials, 
of  the  body  and  blood. 

Page  40.]  Bishop  Pearce  in  his  Commentaries,  and  note  Q, 
on  ver.  16  ;  as  well  as  in  his  Commentary,  and  note  S,  on  ver. 
18  ;  and  his  Commentary^,  and  note  W,  on  ver.  20  ;  is  very 
particularly  careful  in  repeatedly  interpreting  the  word  xenaua, 
as  signifying  the  common^  or  Joint  participation  of  several  to- 
gether in  the  same  thing ;  and  Bishop  Hoadly  likewise  has  in- 
terpreted it  in  the  same  manner. ^/?J  But  if  they  had  happen- 
ed to  observe,  what  is  so  fully  proved  by  the  passages  referred 
to  in  page  38,  that  St.  Paul  uses  xonun*  itself  to  express 
merely  the  participation,  &c.  of  one  only,  of  whatever  it  may 
be  ;  and  that  when  he  designs  to  express  by  the  word  itself  the 
common^  or  joint  participation  of  several  together  in  any  thing, 
he  makes  use  of  the  compound  word  (rvyiunmiitt ; — they  could 

CmJ  See  Exod.  xii.  3—11. 
fnj  Rational  Account,  &.c.  p.  35 — 37. 
foj  Plain  Account,  p.  45,  46. 

f^pj  Sec  Plain  Account,  &c.  p.  ZZ,  34,  39,  43.— 3d  edit. 
N 


QH  NOTE  S.  [Pfl5^40. 

not,  it  Is  presumed,  have  interpreted  xtntnut  in  these  verses  in 
the  sense  they  have. — Bishop  Warburton  rightly  contends,  that 
.x*nmut  itself  does  not  include  the  ideaofy'om^  participation  ,(9) 
though  he  takes  no  notice  of  the  use  St.  Paul  makes  of  die 
compound  r«y»«««w«,  when  he  would  express  that  meaning. 

The  natural  effect  of  prefixing-«;»-to  any  word  seems  ex- 
tremely obvious,  and  is  very  remarkably  exemplified  in  Rom. 
viii.  17  ;  1  Cor.  xii.  26  ;  and  2  Cor.  viii.  23  ;  and  in  the  last 
passage  in  particular,  the  pointed  use  of  kmuivs  and  wngyti  puts 
the   matter  beyond  doubt. 

But  though  the  true  meaning  of  the  simple  word  Ketttnuc  is 
what  these  passages  prove  it  to  be  ;  and  the  great  stress  that 
has  been  laid  upon  translating  it  in  1  Cor.  x.  16,  as  if  it  there 
had-rt»»-prefixed  to  it,  has  made  it  eligible  to  show  which  is  its 
true  sense  ;  it  is  highly  proper  to  remark,  that  this  is  not  a 
point  of  any  importance  to  the  nature  of  the  right,  which  it  is 
the  object  of  this  treatise  to  ascertain.  The  only  question  of 
moment  relating  to  the  nature  and  effects  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per is.  Whether  x*trant»  in  this  pasage  signifies  simply  the  extet' 
nal participation  of  the  bread  and  wine,  taken  as  representa- 
tives of  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  ;  or  some  internal  spiritu- 
al communication^  supposed  to  accompany  the  participation  of 
the  bread  and  wine,  by  the  divine  appointment  of  him,  who  in- 
stituted the  rite.  And  to  determine  this  point,  the  reader  will 
consider  the  whole  of  what  is  alledged  from  page  38  to  page 
41,  and  the  following  note  on  page  40. 

Pag  40.]  The  obsei'vation  that  the  word*  xuttnuc  must  ne- 
cessarily be  understood  in  the  first  part  of  each  of  these  quesr 
tions,  though  St.  Paul  has  actually  inserted  it  only  in  the  last 
part  of  them,  appears  so  obvious  the  moment  it  is  suggested,  as 
to  seem  scarce  requisite  to  be  made  :  and  yet  the  want  of  at- 
tending to  this  particular,  obvious  as  it  is,  appears  to  have 
been  one  radical  cause  of  all  the  variety  of  opinions  which  have 
been  entertained  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  itself  in  these 
questions  j  and  of  its  having  been  supposed,  thatSt.  Paulmeant 
to  express  by  it  some  mysterious  spiritual  effects  arising  from, 
or  accompanying,  the  partaking  of  the  bread  and  wine  in  this 
rite. — Had  it  been  observed,  that  the  cup^  or  wine  itself,  can  on- 
ly bc^  or  answer  to,  the  blood ;  and  the  bread  itself  only  to  the 
body ;  aud  consequently,  that  the  Mutniee,  of  the  cup  and  the 
bread  must  here  be  supplied,  or  understood,  to  answer  to  the 
xuiunx  of  the  blood  and  the  body  ;  had  this  been  attended  to, 
it  could  not  but  have  been  seen  likewise,  that  xMuuct  must  of 

fqj  Rational  Account,  &c.  p.  oS — 35.  Edit.  12mo,  1741. 


Page  24.]  NOTES.  99 

necessity  have  the  self  same  meaning  as  applied  to  each ;  and 
therefore  that  it  could  not  signify  any  thing  more  than  the  ex- 
ternal partaking  of  the  representatives  or  memorials  of  the 
body  and  blood ;  since  it  is  evidently  impossible  for  it  to  signi- 
fy any  thing  more  than  external  partaking  as  applied  to  the  bread 
and  wine.  And  thus  the  meaning  of  St.  Paul  in  these  ques- 
tions ;  which  he  thought  so  obvious,  that  the  Corinthians  them- 
selves could  neither  mistake  nor  doubt  about  it  ;  and  the  sim- 
ple nature  of  the  rite,  to  which  they  relate,  would  have  been 
clearly  understood,  and  effectually  ascertained.  But  partly  from 
not  attending  to  this  particular,  and  partiy  from  not  previously 
-establishing  the  true  sense  of  aonunit^  by  observing  in  what  man- 
ner the  Apostle  uses  it  on  other  occasions ;  it  has  here  been 
translated  by  the  improper  term  communion^  instead  of  the  prop- 
er term  participation.  St.  Paul  as  it  has  been  shewn,  here 
means  by  xetmvix  the  participation^  or  act  of  partaking  of  the 
bread  and  wmc  :  whereas  the  word  communion  does  not  signi- 
fy the  participation  itself,  but  the  connexioJi  or  fellowship  aris- 
ing between  the  several  partakers,  in  consequence  ot  their  join- 
ing in  the  same  religious  act :  so  that  by  translating  kmuim  by 
the  word  communio?i,  instead  of  the  word  participation^  aie  sense 
of  St.  Paul  is  misrepresented,  and  rendered  extremely  doubtful 
and  obscure. — This  improper  translation  of  mhuu*  and  the 
not  distinguishing  between  the  sense  in  which  St.  Paul  uses  the 
simple  term  x«ir«M«,  and  the  compound  wyKonunit^  pointed  out  in 

pages  38 tu,  seem  to  have  been  the  immediate  causes  of  all 

the  apparent  difficulty  of  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  St.  Paul 
in  these  questions,  which  he  himself  thought  so  obvious  as  not 
to  need  an  explanation^  and  of  all  the  obscurity,  with  which  the 
nature  and  design  of  the  Eucharist  have  been  so  much  embar- 
rassed, in  consequence  of  it. 

Page  42.]  Bishop  Pearce  in  his  Commentary  and  note  on  ver. 
17,  supposes  St.  i'iiul  to  speak  of  the  bread  partaken  of  by  each 
person  in  the  Lord's  Supper  as  part  ©f  one  and  the  same  loaf; 
and  to  urge,  that  the  partakers  are  all  one  (5'Ofl'j/ because  the  bread 
they  all  partake  of  is  one  loaf;  and  Bishop  Hoadly(^rJ  and  Dr. 
Waterland(^5j  interpret  the  Apostle's  reasoning  in  the  same 
manner.  But  this,  it  is  apprehended,  is  neither  true  in  fact,  nor 
the  meaning  of  St.  Paul.  The  apostle  is  not  here  speaking  of 
any  one  congregation  of  Christians  only ;  or  of  separate  con- 
gi\^^gations  as  united  in  themselves,  though  distinct  from  each 
other  }  but  of  all  Christians  universally.     He  expressly  addres- 

(r)  Plain  Account,  &c.  p.  34.  3d  edit. 
{s)  iieview  of  the  doctrine,  &c.  p.  465. 


100  NO  T  E  S.  iPagr  S3. 

ses  himself  in  this  Epistle  not  only  to  the  church  of  God  which 
xvas  at  Corinth^  but  at  the  same  time  to  all  that  in  every  place 
called  np07i  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.CtJ  And  he  affirms  that 
because  the  bread  partaken  of  by  all  universally  is  one,  all  are 
one  body,  since  they  all  partake  of  the  one  bread.  But  it  is 
by  no  means  true,  that  the  bread  partaken  of  by  all  universally 
is  one  loaf;  since  in  different  places  it  always  is,  and  even  in  the 
same  place  sometimes  may  be,  taken  from  different  loaves  ;  ani 
in  different  countries  the  loaves  may  often  consist  of  ver}'^  differ- 
ent kinds  of  bread  ;  and  yet  the  rite  is  properly  celebrated,  and 
all  Christians  become  one  body  in  the  sense  of  St.  Paul,  by  cel- 
ebrating it,  notwithstanding  these  differences  ;  and  this  conse- 
quence would  be  just  as  true,  if  it  should  be  celebrated  with  some- 
thing else  instead  of  bread  in  any  place  where  no  bread  was  to 
be  had.  When  St.  Paul  therefore  said,  that  the  bread  partaken 
of  by  all,  in  all  countries,  was  one,  and  that  all  were  on  that  ac- 
count one  body ;  he  did  not,  because  he  could  not,  mean,  that 
the  bread  itself  partaken  of  by  all  every  where  was  one  loaf; 
and  the  partakers  one  body,  because  partakers  of  ofie  loaf;  or 
even  because  the  food  partaken  of  by  all  in  this  rite  was  of  one 
and  the  same  general  nature,  dread;  but  that  the  bread 
was  partaken  of  by  all  every  where  as  the  representative  or  me- 
morial of  one  and  the  same  thing,  the  body  of  Jesus  ifiij  which 
he  had  particularly  reminded  them  it  was,  by  his  questions  in 
the  immediately  preceding  verse ;  and  therefore,  that  all  uni- 
versally, who  partook  of  bread  in  this  rite,  on  this  one  religious 
account,  shewed  themselves  by  the  celebration  of  this  rite  to  be 
one  body,  viz.  of  professed  Christians,  or  believers  in  Christ. 
Pag-e  55.']  The  fault  which  the  Corinthians  had  been  guilty 
of,  as  plainly  appears  from  what  St.  Paul  has  said  upon  it,  was 
that  of  eating  and  drinking  their  common  supper,  not  only  with- 
out a  common  seriousness  and  decorum,  but  even  with  much 
indecency  and  disorder,  at  those  very  times  when  they  were  as- 
sembled purposely  to  eat  bread  and  drink  wine  in  remembrance 
of  Jesus  ;  and  either  had  just  assisted  at  the  celebration  of 
that  rite,  or  were  just  about  to  do  it.  This  no  doubt  was  ex- 
tremely blameworthy  ;  but  blameworthy  as  it  was,  nothing 
surely  can  warrant  us  in  supposing,  that  this  offence  was  equal 

(0  1  Cor  i.  2. 

(u)  Notwitlistanding  tlie  reason  above-mentioned  is  given  by  Bishop  Hoad- 
1)',  as  that  on  account  of  w iiich  the  bi-ead  is  called  one,  in  the  Plain  Account, 
&c.  p.  34  ;  he  afterwards  takes  notice,  in  his  Appendix,  p.  187,  that  St.  Paul 
mig'ht  call  it  one,  for  the  very  reason  here  assigned.  We  have  seen,  it  i,s 
presumed,  that  there  was  not  any  other  reason  for  which  he  could  call  it  one. 


Page  66.]  NOTES.  101 

to  the  sin  of  those  who  actually  put  Jesus  to  death,  or  that  St. 
Paul  could  mean  to  assert  that  it  was.  But  the  great  Grotius, 
in  his  short  note  upon  the  passage,  has  interpreted  the  apostle 
as  if  he  did  ;  and  the  very  eminent  author  of  the  Rational  Ac- 
count &c.  citing  St.  Paul's  word^,  that  those  who  partook  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  unworthily^  were  guilty  of  the  body  ayid  blood 
of  the  Lord ;  explains  their  meaning  by  saying  expressly— 
'*  i.  e.  his  murderers." (^x J  In  another  passage  likewise  he 
explains  St.  Paul  as  in  this  place — "  ranking  these  criminals 
with  the  murderers  of  the  Lord  of  life.'^fyj — And  to  account 
for  this  supposed  "  severity"  of  the  apostle  ;  (of  which  he  ac- 
knowledges "  we  can  hardly  see  the  justice," (^2 J  "  if  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  only  to  commemorate  a  dead  ben- 
efactor ;")('a^  and  at  the  same  time  to  support  that  notion  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  for  which  he  contends,  his  lordship  says,  "  But 
"  let  us  only  suppose,  that  St.  Paul  considered  the  last  Supper 
"  as  a  feast  upon  sacrifice  ;  that  is,  as  a  Rite  in  which  the  ben- 
"  efits  of  Christ's  death  and  passion  were  conveyed,  and  at  the 
"  same  time  slighted  ;  and  all  becomes  easy  and  natural.  The 
"  profanation  of  such  a  rite,  by  rendering  his  death  ineffectual, 
"  was  indeed  aiding  the  purpose  of  his  murderers  ;  and  there- 
"  fore  might  be  fitly  compared,  ^nA  justly  equalled  to  the  pro- 
•'  digious  enormity  of  that  crime."r^J 

With  all  due  respect  for  so  veiy  eminent  an  author,  when 
the  point  in  question  is  of  such  importance,  as  the  nature  of  the 
most  distinguishing  institution  of  our  Lord,  it  may  I  hope  be 
permitted  to  observe,  that  if  indeed  this  consequence  would 
follow  from  the  notion  of  the  Lord's  Supper  here  contended 
ior,  this  consideration  alone  would  be  a  decisive  proof,  either 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  a  feast  upon  sacrifice,  as  is  here 
contended  ;  or,  that  the  Christian  religion,  of  which  it  is  ar  in- 
stitution, is  not  from  above.  For  this  doctrine,  that  the  guilt  of 
the  Corinthians  in  the  instance  under  considei-ation,  was  equal 
to  the  guilt  of  those  who  actually  put  Jesus  to  death,  appears 
so  plainly  repugnant  to  truth,  that  it  cannot  be  received  as  com- 
ing from  God  ;  and  St.  Paul,  as  we  apprehend  it  has  been  fully 
proved,  is  entirely  innocent  of  any  such  assertion. 

Page  66.]  Thus  when  the  Jews  required  a  sign  from  Jesus, 
to  vindicate  the  authqrity  he  assumed  in  driving  the  buyers  and 
sellers  out  of  the  temple,  and  he  in  answer  to  their  demand  re- 
plied,— Destroy  this  temple^  and  in  three  days  Ixvill  build  it  up  i 

fxj  See  a  Ralional  Account  of  Uie   Nature  and  End  of  tlie  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  small  12mo, — 1761 — page  42. 
fyj  Ibid,  page  13.     fzj  Page  14.     ("aj  Page  13. 
fdj  See  a  Rational  Account,  &c.  page  11. 


i02  NOTES;  [Pa^e  83. 

— to  prevent  his  readers  from  supposing,  as  the  Jews  at  that 
time  did,  that  he  meant  the  temple  itsch  ;  Jolin  takes  care  to 
inform  us,  that  Jesus  meant  the  temple  of  his  body.  Gosp.  ii. 
19. — So  upon  relating  that  Jesus  stood  in  the  temple,  and  cri- 
ed^ sayings  If  any  ma7i  thirsty  let  him  come  unto  me  and  drink  : 
He  that  believeth  on  me^  as  the  scripture  hath  said,  out  of  his 
belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water  : — John  immediately 
adds,  to  explain  these  figurative  expressions.  But  this  spake  he 
of  the  Spirit^  which  they  that  believe  on  him  stisuld  receive^  &c. 
— Ibid.  vii.  ^7 — 39. — When  Jesus  had  said,  in  the  presence  of 
the  people,  not  long  betore  he  was  put  to  death,— -4n^  /,  i/'  / 
be  lifted  up  from  the  earthy  will  draxv  all  ?nen  wito  me  ; — which 
his  hearers  did  not  understand  ;  John  immediately  adds  from 
himself, — This  he  said,  signifying  what  death  he  should  die. 
Ibid.  xii.  33. — When,  speaking  to  Peter,  in  relation  to  the 
apostles,  just  before  he  washed  their  feet,  he  said,  Te  areclean^ 
hut  not  all ;  John  immediately  adds  to  explain  his  meaning, 
''^  For  he  knew  xvho  should  betray  him  ;  tnerefore  said  he,  Te 
are  not  all  clean^^  John  xii.  10,  11. — So  after  relating  several 
particulars  which  Jesus,  not  long  before  his  ascension,  foretold 
to  Peter,  as  what  would  happen  to  him  j  John  explains  them 
by  saying —  Ihis spake  he,  signifying  by  what  death  he  (Peter) 
should  glorify  God. — Ibid,  xxi  19. — So  likewise  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  very  chapter,  in  which  is  recorded  what  Jesus  said 
to  the  Jews  at  Capernaum,  about  eating  his  fish,  and  drinking 
his  blood ;'no  sooner  has  John  related,  that  Jesus,  upon  seeing  a 
great  multitude  coming  to  him,  said  unto  Philip,  whence  shall 
tve  buy  bread,  that  these  may  eat  ?  than  he  adds,  to  prevent  all 
misapprehension  ; — And  this  he  said  to  prove  him^  fow  he  him' 
self  knezv  zvhat  he  would  do.     Ibid.  vi.  5,  6. 

Page  83.]  Bishop  Warburton  having  introduced  in  his  Ra- 
tional Accovmt,  &c.  an  argument  urged  by  the  bishop  of  Meaux 
in  favor  of  the  real  Presence  ;  and  having  acknowledged  the 
objection  on  which  it  is  grounded  to  be  a  great  difficulty  iCcJ 
and  even  himself  asserted,  that  this  difficulty  *'  has  long  embar- 
"  rassed  all  the  several  opposers  of  the  doctrine  of  1  ransub- 
sTANTiATioN  ;"f^J  ^^^  having  likewise  employed  several 
pages  in  endeavouring  to  shew,  that  this  objection  is  entirely  re- 
moved, by  the  discovery  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  feast  upon 
sacrifice  ;("t?J  And  it  having  now  been  proved,  if  we  nave  reas- 
oned right,  that  the  Lords  Supper  cannot  be  a  feast  upon  sacri- 
fice i  it  will  afford  us  satisfaction,  though  it  is  not  necessary,  to 

rcj  Rational  Account,  &c.  Edit.  12mo— 1761— page  59. 
\d)  Ibid,  page  61.  ("ej  From  page  SZ  to  page  65. 


Page  83.]  NOTES.  103 

shew,  upon  this  occiasion,  that  Mr.  Bossuet's  argument  Is  real- 
ly destitute  of  all  foundation  and  truth  ;  and  the  supposed  dif- 
ficulty upon  which  it  proceeds  purely  imaginary  ;  as  well  as, 
that  if  it  was  real,  the  notion  of  the  Lord's  Supper  being  a 
feast  upon  sacrifice  woujd  not  even  in  the  least  degree  enable 
us  to  remove  it. 

The  Bishop  of  Meaux's  argument,  against  interpreting  the 
words  of  the  institution  of  signifying  nothing  more,  than  that 
the  bread  and  wine  were  to  be  taken  as  representatives  and  me- 
naorials  of  the  body  and  blood,  is  as  follows,  in  Bishop  Warbur- 
ton's  own  translation  of  the  passage. 

*'  When  Jesus  Christ  said.  This  is  my  body^  This  is  my 
*'  blood,  he  was  neither  propounding  a  parable,  nor  explaining 
*'  an  allegory. — The  words,  which  are  detached  and  separate 
"  from  all  other  discourse,  carry  their  whole  meaning  in  them- 
"  selves — The  business  in  hand  was  the  institution  of  a  Nexv 
*'  mitey  which  required  the  use  of  simple  terms  :  and  that 
*•  place  in  scripture  is  yet  to  be  discovered,  where  the  sign  hath 
"  the  name  of  the  thing  signified  given  to  it  at  the  moment  of 
"  the  institution  of  the  rite,  and  without  any  leading  frep- 

"  ARATION."(7'J 

Whether  any  such  Instance  has  yet  been  observed  in  scrip- 
ture or  not,  certain  it  is,  that  scripture  will  supply  us  with  one. 
The  passover  is  an  instance  of  exactly  the  same  nature  with 
that  here  required  ;  and  the  unquestionably  figurative  form  of 
its  institution  answers  exactly  to  that  of  the  Lord's  Supper  fig- 
uratively understood.  At  the  very  first  institution  of  it,  the 
Lord,  having  instructed  Moses  in  what  manner  to  direct  the 
people  to  choose  out,  kill,  dress,  and  eat,  a  lamb  ifg^J  immedi- 
ately declared,  without  any  leading  preparation.  It  is  the  Lord^s 
Passover  ;  and  then  added  the  reason,  on  account  of  which  the 
rite  was  instituted,  and  distinguished  by  this  naxncChJ 

This  Is  certainly  a  case  in  point.  When  the  Lord  said,  on 
this  occasion.  It  is  the  Lord^s  Passover,  he  was  neither  pro- 
pounding a  parable,  nor  explaining  an  allegory. — 'I'he  words,  It 
is  the  Lord^s  Passover,  in  the  institution  of  tliis  rite,  were  as 
much  detached  and  separate  from  all  other  discourse,  and  did 
as  much  carry  their  whole  meaning  in  themselves,  as  the  words, 
This  is  my  body.  This  is  my  blood,  did  In  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper. — ^The  business  In  hand  was  here  likewise  the 
institution  of  a  New  Rite  ;  and  if  that  circumstance  would  have 
required  the  use  of  simple  terms,  as  opposed  to  figurative,  in 

ffj  Rational  Account,  &c.  as  before,  page  55. 

^^J  Exod.  xii.  3 — 11.    ^AJ  Ibid.  ver.  11 — 14.     See  the  passage. 


104  NOTES.  83 

the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  it  must  equally  have  re- 
quired the  use  of  simple  terms,  as  opposed  to  figurative,  in 
this  prior  institution  of  the  Passover. — And  evident  it  is,  that 
in  this  instance  the  sign,  the  lamb  killed  and  dressed,  &c.  as 
commanded,  had  the  name  of  the  thing  signified,  the  action  of 
the  Lord's  passing  over  the  houses  of  the  Israelites,  given  to  it 
at  the  moment  of  the  institution  of  the  rite  ;  and  as  much  with- 
out any  leading  preparation,  as  the  bread  and  wine  had  the 
name  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  given  to  them,  in  the  in- 
stitution of  the  Eucharist. 

Here  therefore  we  have  a  direct  and  complete  refutation  of 
the  argument  before  us,  which  will  admit  of  no  reply.  Not 
even  the  Bishop  of  Meaux  himself  would  have  allowed,  much 
less  contendid,  that  the  words  of  the  institution  of  the  Jewish 
Passover  ought  to  be  understood  literally  ;  though  he  contends 
for  disgracing  the  religion  of  Christ  with  all  the  absurdities  of 
a  real  presence  and  Transubstantiation  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. And  yet  the  instituting  forms  ©f  words  in  both  these 
rites  are  so  exactly  similar,  in  the  point  concerned,  that  the 
same  mode  of  interpretation  must  of  necessit^'^  be  applied  to 
both.  If  the  declaratory  words  of  the  institution  of  the  Passo- 
ver must  be  figuratively  understood,  so  must  those  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  ;  and  vice  versa,  if  the  declaratory  words  of  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  must  be  literally  understood,  so 
must  those  of  the  Passover  likewise.  The  necessary  conse- 
quence of  which  should  be,  that  what  the  Jews  ate  at  the  Pas- 
chal Supper,  and  that  as  often  as  they  celebrated  it,  was  not 
really  the  lamb  itself,  that  they  had  killed  and  dressed  in  the 
manner  they  were  commanded  ;  but  was  actually  the  Lord 
himself ;  and  not  only  so,  but  it  was  the  Lord,  employed  at 
the  very  time  in  the  act  of  passing  over  the  houses  of  the  Israel- 
ites, and  that  in  Egypt ;  and  smiting  the  first-born  both  of  man 
and  beast  in  those  of  the  Egyptians. 

These  are  such  extravagant  absurdities  as  even  they,  who 
contend  for  a  real  presence  and  transubstantiation  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  will  by  no  means  admit  the  possibility  of  in  the  Passo- 
ver ;  and  yet  the  principles  of  the  argument  in  question  would 
force  them  to  receive  the  one,  as  well  as  the  other  :  for  if  the 
Lord's  Supper  must  be  understood  literally,  because  a  new 
rite  cannot  be  instituted  in  figurative  terms  ;  the  Passover 
must  likewise  be  understood  literally  for  the  self  same  reason. 
And  if  the  sign  could  not  have  the  name  of  the  thing  signified 
given  to  it  at  the  moment  of  the  institution,  without  any  leading 


Page  83.]  NOTES.  \0S 

preparation,  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  neither  could  it  in  the  Pas- 
so  ver.fi  J 

It  appears  then,  that  the  figurative  form  of  the  institution  of 
the  Passover  supplies  us  with  a  direct  and  full  refutation  of  this 
argument  of  the  Bishop  of  Mcaux  :igainst  the  figurative  inter- 
pretation of  the  declaratory  words  in  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

But  to  remove  all  obscurity  from  this  subject,  which  has  been 
so  unhappily  obscured  ;  to  establish  the  protestant  doctrine  re- 
lating to  it  upon  its  true  piinciples,  and  vindicate  the  figurative 
interpretation  of  the  Lord's  Supper  from  all  objections  whatev- 
er ;  it  will  be  useful  to  shew,  that  the  very  Drinciples  upon 
which  this  argument  of  Mr.  Bossuet  proceeds,  and  which  Bish- 
op Warburton  has  admitted,  are  destitute  of  all  foundation  in 
truth,  and  the  reason  of  the  thing  ;  so  that  if  no  other  rite  of  a 
figurative  kind  had  ever  before  been  instituted,  the  figurative 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  would  have  been  just  as  unex- 
.  ceptionable  and  proper  as  it  now  is  ;  and  that,  without  .any  re- 
course had  to  the  supposition,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  feast 
upon  sacrifice. 

*'  We  see,"  says  Bishop  Warburton,  "  that  Bossuet  rests  his 
*'  objection  upon  the  force  of  the  words  ;  which,  in  his  opinion, 
"  can  admit  of  no  figurative  sense,  without  doing  extreme  vio- 
*'  lence  to  human  language  and  expression."  And  he  directly 
adds  from  himself — "  Indeed  as  far  as  regards  the  fwrdness  of 
"  the  figure,  I  believe  most  protestant  doctors  have  been  ready 
^'  enough  to  join  with  him."fij 

Whether  most  protestant  doctors  have  in  fact  been  ready  to 
join  with  the  popish  Bishop  in  this  particular,  or  not  ;  a  point 
of  which  I  confess  myself  ignorant ;  to  determine  the  merits  of 
the  question,  it  must  be  our  business  to  inquire  into  the  reality 
of  this  supposed  "  hardness  of  the  figure  ;"  and  this  "  extreme 
"  violence  here  supposed  to  be  done  to  human  language  and 
"  expression  ;"  by  understanding  our  Saviour's  words,  This  is 
my  body^  £s?c.  This  is  7ny  bloody  ^c.  as  meant  to  signify, — I 
appoint  this  for  a  representative  or  memorial  of  my  body.  Sec. 
— and  this  for  a  representative  or  memorial  of  my  blood,  &c. 

The  proper   use   of  language    is  to   convey   our  thoughts. 

("ij  It  is  a  fact  well  worthy  of  remark,  and  such  as  deserves  the  most  seri- 
ous reflection  of  all  M'hom  it  concerns,  that  wliile  a  very  great  proportion  of 
the  Christian  world  have  been  required  to  believe,  and  actually  have  believed, 
a  real  Presence  and  Transubstantiation  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  no  Jew  was 
ever  yet  wild  enough  to  conceive  the  thought,  or  dishonest  enough  to  incul» 
catethe  belief,  of  a  real  Presence  or  Ti-ansubstantiation  in  the  Passover. 

fkj  Rational  Account,  &c.  page  59. 

O 


toe  NOTES.  [Pa^e  83. 

When  therefore  language  is  so  used,  as  to  shew  whether  it  is 
intended  to  be  understood  in  a  literal,  or  a  figurative  sense  ;  it 
is  used  as  properly,  and  is  as  perfectly  free  from  having  any  vi- 
olence done  to  it,  when  made  use  of  figuratively,  as  when  used 
in  the  most  literal  sense. 

But  in  making  use  of  language,  our  thoughts  may  be  convey- 
ed not  only  by  the  words  we  deliver,  but  likewise  in  some 
measure  by  the  particular  situation  and  circumstances  in  which 
they  are  delivered. 

When  therefore  an  expression  is  made  use  of  in  a  figurative 
sense,  but  in  such  circumstances  as  clearly  show,  that  the  speakr 
er  does  not  intend  it  to  be  understood  literally  ;  whatever  the 
words  themselves  may  be,  and  whatever  the  occasion  on  which 
they  are  delivered,  the  words-  «re  used  properly  ;  nor  is  any 
violence  done  to  human  language  and  expression,  by  their  be- 
ing used  in  a  figurative,  instead  of  their  literal  sense. 

These  positions,  I  presume,  must  be  granted  ;  and  from 
them  it  will  immediately  follow,  that  if  the  words  made  use  of 
by  Jesus,  in  instituting  the  rite  in  question,  were  spoken  by 
Kim  in  such  circumstances  as  sufficiently  shewed  to  those,  to 
whom  he  addressed  them  at  the  time,  that  he  did  not  intend 
them  to  be  understood  in  their  literal  sense,  but  figuratively  ; 
ihen  the  words  under  consideration  must  be  understood  fig- 
uratively ;  and  Jesus's  making  use  of  them  in  such  a  figura- 
tive sense,  upon  this  particular  occasion,  could  not  be  doing  any 
^^iolence  whatever  to  human  language  and  expression. 

After  all,  therefore,  the  only  particular  to  be  considered,  in 
order  to  determine  the  point  in  question,  is,  whether  the  words 
of  this  institution  were  spoken  by  Jesus  in  such  circumstances, 
as  mv^st  have  plainly  shewn  at  the  time,  that  they  were  not  inten- 
ded to  be  understood  in  their  literal  sense,  but  figuratively.  And 
evident  it  is,  that  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were  spoken 
were  so  very  particular,  as  far  as  relates  to  them  that  it  was  abso- 
lut<>ly  impossible  for  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed  to  imag- 
ine they  were  designed  to  be  literally  understood.  The  bread 
he  gave  the  apostles  to  eat,  and  the  wine  he  gave  them  to  drink, 
were  part  of  the  veiy  same  with  those  they  hadjust  been  partak- 
ing ol  in  the  Paschal  Supper  itself ;  and  had  nothing  in  them 
peculiar  or  uncommon  :  and  this  bread,  he  told  them,'  was  his 
body  green  for  them  ;  raid  this  wine  his  blood  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament shed  for  them  ;  when  they  saw  him,  at  the  very  time, 
3-et  whole  and  unhurt  before  them  ;  and  knew  intuitively,  that 
his  body  was  not  given,  nor  his  blood  shed.  So  that  unless 
ihey  had  been  real  ideots,  or  absolute  madmen,  it  was  utterly 
impossible  for  them  to  consider  the  words  in  question,  as  spoken 
to  theitt  in  any  other  than  a  figtirative  sense. 


Page  83.]  NOTES.  107 

Instead  therefore  of  being  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  the 
notion  of  a  feast  upon  sacrifice,  or  any  other  particular  idea  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  to  rescue  the  figurative  interpretation  of  the 
words  of  the  institution  from  the  charge  brought  against  it  bj'- 
the  Bishop  of  Meaux,  and  readily  joined  in  by  the  author  of 
the  Rational  Account  ;  it  appears,  merely  from  considering  the 
words  themselves,  and  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were 
spoken,  that  the  figurative  interpretation  of  them  must  be 
their  true  interpretation  ;  and  that  to  understand  them  in  the 
literal  sense,  when  delivered  in  such  circumstances,  would  in- 
deed be  doing  such  extreme  violence  to  human  language  and  ex- 
pression, as  could  not  possibly  be  admitted. 

After  what  has  now  been  seen,  it  is  scarce  possible  to  avoid 
enquiring,  what  "  the  hardness  of  the  figure,"  so  much  com- 
plained of  by  the  author  of  the  Rational  Account,  as  if  contain- 
ed in  the  words  in  question,  may  mean,  and  in  what  it  can 
consift  ? — The  figure  is  nothing  more,  than  the  appointment  of 
one  thing  for  the  representative  or  memorial  of  another,  by  af- 
firming it  to  be  that  other  ;  at  such  a  time,  and  in  such  circum- 
stances, as  indisputably  shewed,  that  the  name  of  the  thing  sig- 
nified was  given  to  the  sign,  not  in  the  literal,  but  in  a  figura- 
tive sense. — What  hardness  is  there  in  this  figure,  or  in  what 
can  it  possibly  consist  ?  If  there  is  any  hardness  or  difficulty 
at  all  in  it,  it  must  arise  from  one  of  these  two  circumstances  ; 
either  that  bread  and  wine  are  things  exceedingly  unlike  aman*a 
body  and  blood  ;  or,  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  here  said  to 
be  the  body  and  blood  ;  instead  of  being  said  explicitly,  and  at 
length,  to  be  represeiitatives  or  menwrials  of  the  body  and  blood. 
But  from  neither  of  those  circumstances  can  the  least  hardness 
or  difficulty  arise  in  this  particular  instance. 

With  respect  to  the  first,  if  one  thing  be  appointed  to  repre- 
sent, or  be  a  memorial  of  another,  it  is  not  of  any  moment  how 
unlike  that  other  it  may  in  itself  be  ;  provided  only  it  he  tlear- 
ly  signified,  that  it  is  appointed  to  represent,  or  be  a  tfiemorial 
of  it.  Nothing  could  in  itself  be  more  unlike  the  action  of  the 
Lord's  passint;  over  the  houses  of  the  Isratlites  in  Egypt,  when 
he  smote  the  first  born,  both  of  man  and  beast,  in  those  of  the 
Egyptians,  than  a  lamb  killed,  dressed,  and  eaten,  in  any  man- 
ner whatever.  Yet  the  Paschal  Supper,  when  once  positively 
appointed  for  a  memorial  of  that  transaction,  was  as  clear  and 
indisputable  a  memorial  of  it,  and  did  as  elFectually  preser%'e 
the  memory  of  it,  as  any  supposed  representation  of  the  trans- 
action itself  could  have  done.  And  in  the  same  manner,  though 
bread  and  wine  had  not  in  themselves  any  natural  resemblance 
to  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus,  yet  in  consequence  of  being 
expressly  appointed  by  hira  to  be  taken  as  memorials  of  them, 


108  NOTES.  [Pa^e  83. 

they  are  in  fact  as  clear  and  certain  memorials  of  his  sufferings, 
as  any  representation  of  his  suft'erings  could  be.  >Jo  hardness 
of  figure  therefore  can  be  justly  complained  of  in  the  institution 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  on  account  of  the  want  of  a  natural  resem- 
blance between  the  bread  and  wine  and  the  body  and  blood  of 
Jesus,  which  they  are  appointed  to  represent  in  it. 

Neither  can  any  arise  from  the  particular  manner  in  which 
the  appointment  of  these  memorials  was  expressed.  When  one 
thing  is  intended  to  be  made  the  representative,  or  memorial 
of  another,  if  instead  of  saying  explicitly, — ''  This  is  a  repre- 
sentative of  That," — it  should  be  said  concisely — "  This  is 
That  ;" — and  if,  at  the  same  time,  the  particular  circumstances, 
in  which  this  form  of  expression  is  made  use  of,  shew  infallibly, 
that  the  One  thing  concerned  can  in  no  other  sense  be  the  Oth" 
er,  than  as  a  representative  or  memorial  of  it  ;  then  the  form 
of  expression  made  use  of — "■  This  is  That," — must  be  known 
to  signify — "  This  is  a  representative  or  memorial  of  That  ;" — 
and  no  hardness  of  figure  can  be  justly  objected  to  it  ;  nor  can 
any  violence  whatever  be  done  to  human  language  and  expres- 
sion by  it  ;  as  we  have  seen  already,  from  considering  the  na- 
ture and  end  of  language,  in  this  note.  And  this  it  is  obvious 
was  the  very  case,  in  the  institution  of  the  rite  under  consider- 
ation. 

The  notion  therefore  of  any  "  hardness  of  the  figure  ;"  or  of 
any  "  violence  done  to  human  language  and  expression,"  by  in- 
terpreting the  declaratory  words  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  in  the  figurative  sense,  instead  of  the  literal  ;  is  utterly 
destitute  of  all  foundation  in  truth,  and  the  plain  reason  of  thq 
thing.  And  when  it  is  considered,  that  Jesus,  and  they  to 
whom  he  addressed  himself  on  this  occasion,  had  just  been  cel- 
ebrating the  JeM' ish  Passover,  the  most  signal  memorial  in  that 
religion,  at  the  very  time  when  he  instituted  this  nte,  for  a  me- 
morial of  himself  in  his  ow^n  ;  it  must  surely  be  confessed 
nothing  can  be  more  natural,  than  that  he  should  institute  Thi^ 
in  a  form  of  expression,  similar  to  the  form  which  had  been  made 
use  of  in  the  institution  of  That,  and  which  every  Jew  without 
exception  understood  in  an  exactly  similar  figurative  sense. 

The  Bishop  of  Meaux  indeed  has  asserted,  and  even  without 
any  attempt  at  a  proof,  as  if  it  was  a  point  not  to  be  questioned, 
that ""  the  institution  of  a  new  rite  required  the  use  of  simple 
terms  ;"f /J  but  the  assertion  is  destitute  of  all  foundation  in 
truth.  In  instituting  a  new  rite,  as  Avell  as  upon  ever)'  other 
occasion,  it  is  requisite  we  should  use  our  words  in  such  a  man- 

ClJ  See  the  passage  q^iioted  from  him,  page  103. 


Page  83.]  NOTES.  109 

ner,  that  the  sense  in  which  we  mean  them  to  be  understood, 
whether  literal  or  figurative,  should  appear  :  but  this  is  all  that 
is  required  ;  and  when  this  point  is  pi'operly  taken  care  of,  fig- 
urative expressions  are  just  as  proper  in  instituting  a  new  rite, 
as  the  most  literal. 

When  in  the  first  institution  of  the  Passover  it  was  said  of 
the  lamb  killed  and  dressed,  &c.  as  enjoined, — "  It  is  the  Lord's 
Passover  ;" — the  rite  itself  was  as  properly  instituted  in  this 
figurative  form  of  expression  ;  and  its  nature  as  well  under- 
stood to  be  figurative,  as  they  could  have  been,  if  it  had  been 
said,  simply  and  at  length, — "  It  is  a  memorial  of  the  Lord's 
Passover ;" — and  for  this  obvious  reason,  because  it  was  self 
evident,  that  the  lamb  so  eaten  could  not  he  the  action  of  the 
Lord's  passing  over  the  houses  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  in 
any  other  sense  than  as  a  memorial  or  commemoration  of  it. 

And  the  same  figurative  form  of  expression  was,  for  the  self 
same  reason,  just  as  allowable  and  proper,  in  the  institution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  When  Jesus  broke  the  bread  and  gave  it 
to  the  apostles,  saying  at  the  same  time — Take^  eat ;  this  is  my 
body  ;  this  do  in  remembrance  ofme; — and  when  he  gave  them 
the  cup,  and  said — Drink  ye  all  ofit;  this  is  my  blood  of  the 
New  Testament; — or,  This  cup  is  the  New  Testameiit  in  my 
blood ; — this  do^  as  oft  as  ye  drink  ity  in  remembrance  ofme ; 
— the  words  he  made  use  of  were  as  properly  used,  and  the 
sense,  in  which  he  designed  them  to  be  understood,  was  as  eifect- 
ually  shewn  to  be  figurative,  as  they  would  have  been,  if  he  had 
said  explicitly  of  the  bread, — This  is  the  memorial  of  my  body  ; 
— and  of  the  cup, — This  is  the  memorial  of  my  blood,'  &c. — ^be- 
cause  it  was  self  evident  at  the  time,  that  they  could  not  be, 
literally,  either  the  one  or  the  other,  (^mj 

It  appears  then,  merely  from  considering  the  use  and  intent 
of  language,  that  all  the  difficulty,  supposed  to  attend  the  figu- 
rative interpretation  of  the  words  of  Jesus  in  instituting  the  rite 
in  question,  is  purely  imaginary ;  and  that  a  figurative  form  of 

Cm  J  But  let  it  not  be  imagined  it  is  here  meant  to  be  inferred,  that  the 
apostles  comprehended  at  the  time  the  further  design  of  Jesus  in  what  he 
said  and  did  on  this  occasion.  It  is  only  contended,  that  the  circumstances, 
in  which  Jesus  called  the  bread  his  body,  and  the  wine  his  blood,  were  such 
as  fully  authorised  him  to  call  them  so,  in  a  ligiu",itive  sense  ;  without  being 
guilty  of  even  the  smallest  impropriety  in  the  use  of  language  ;  because  those 
circumstances  must  certainly  have  convinced  the  apostles  at  the  time,  that  it 
was  a  figurative  sense  only,  in  which  he  so  denominated  them. — As  to  the 
further  design  with  which  Jesus  spoke  and  acted  as  he  did  in  this  instance, 
that  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  comprehend  till  by  inspiration  they  were 
fully  instructed  in  the  piu'pose,  for  which  he  appeared  upon  cartli,  and  in  that 
religion  they  had  been  selected  to  preach  in  his  name. 


119  NOTE  S.  [PageSS, 

expression,  when  used  in  such  circumstances  as  clearly  shew  it 
is  intended  to  be  figuratively  understood,  is  just  as  proper  in  in- 
stituting a  new  rite,  as  in  propounding  a  parable,  or  framing  an 
allegory,  or  on  any  other  occasion  whatever. 

But  to  close  this  subject,  which  has  carried  us  so  far,  it  is 
highly  necessary  to  take  notice,  that  if  the  difficulty  complained 
of  had  any  real  existence,  it  would  unavoidably  remain  an  insu- 
perable obstacle  to  the  figurative  interpretation  of  this  rite,  in 
any  sense  whatever;  would  absolutely  prevent  its  being  a  feast 
upon  sacrifice,  or  even  a  simple  commemoration  ;  and  oblige  us 
to  interpret  the  words  of  the  institution  in  their  strict  literal 
^ense  only. 

Bishop  Warburton  c()ntends,(^wj  that "  the  difficulty,  great  as 
it  is,  is  entirely  removed  ;"  and  that  the  words  of  the  institution 
*'  suffer  no  violent  conversion"  from  being  understood  figura- 
tively ;  if  the  Lord's  Supper  is  specifically  a  feast  upon  sacrifice  ; 
because,  if  Jesus  meant  this  rite  to  be  a  feast  upon  sacrifice,  the 
words  of  the  institution  must  of  necessity  have  been  made  use 
of  by  him  in  a  figurative  sense  ;  and  the  bread  and  wine  natur- 
ally would,  nay  and  necessarily  must,  stand  for,  or  be  the  sym» 
bols  of,  his  body  and  blood. 

Now  if  there  was  any  real  difficulty  in  the  case,  and  if  these 
considerations  would  remove  it,  supposing  the  rite  in  question 
was  intended  by  Jesus  to  be  a  feast  upon  sacrifice  ;  they  will 
equally  remove  it,  supposing  Jesus  to  have  designed  it  for  a 
commemoration  only.  For  in  this  case,  as  well  as  the  other, 
the  words  of  the  institution  must  of  necessity  have  been  made 
use  of  by  him  in  a  figurative  sense  ;  and  the  bread  and  wine 
naturally  would,  nay  and  even  necessarily  must  have  stood  for,  or 
have  been  the  symbols  of,  his  body  and  blood.  So  that  if  these 
considerations  prevent  the  words  of  the  institution  from  "  suf- 
fering any  violent  conversion"  by  being  used  figuratively  in  the 
one  case,  they  likewise  prevent  it  in  the  other  ;  and  no  peculiar 
advantage  whatever  can  be  derived  from  the  supposition  of  the 
Lord's  Supper's  being  specifically  a  feast  upon  sacrifice. 

But  the  truth  is,  that  if  there  really  was  any  such  difficulty 
attending  the  figurative  use  of  the  institution,  these  considera- 
tions would  be  so  far  from  removing  it,  as  Bishop  Warburton 
contends,  that  they  would  in  reality  strengthen  and  confirm  it. 
For  if,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  granted,  as  Bishop  Warburton 
grants,  that  the  words  of  the  institution,  if  here  used  in  a  figu- 
rative sense,  really  do  extreme  violence  to  human  language  and 
cxpr^  sion  ; — and  if,  in  the  next,  it  cannot  be  supposed,  that  Je^ 

Cn  )  Rational  account,  &c.  page  59 — 61. 


fage  83.]  NOTES.  Ill 

sus  in  instituting  a  rite  could  use  words  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
do  extreme  violence  to  human  language  and  expression  ;  (which 
is  here  the  fundamental  principle  all  along  understood  and  ar- 
gued upon  ;)  then  must  it  unavoidably  follow,  that  Jesus  could 
not  mean  to  make  the  rite  he  instituted,  in  this  form  of  expres- 
sion, either  a  feast  upon  sacrifice,  or  even  a  commemoration  ; 
because  in  either  case  his  words  must  of  necessity  be  under- 
stood figuratively  ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  he  must  have  de- 
signed the  words  to  be  understood  in,  and  the  nature  of  the 
rite  to  be  determined  by,  their  strict  literal  sense  alone.  And 
thus  the  admission  of  the  reality  of  this  difficulty  ;  which  the 
Bishop  of  Meaux  has  taken  for  granted,  and  Bishop  Warburton 
readily  allowed,  but  which,  I  apprehend,  we  have  seen  has  no 
real  existence ;  would  effectually  preclude  all  defence  of  any 
figurative  interpretation  whatever  of  the  rite  in  question,  and 
drive  us  unavoidably  into  all  absurdities  of  a  real  presence  and 
absolute  Transubstantiation. 


FIJVIS. 


•M^ 


<*i. 


m^ 


